Allowed¶20

Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Deputy Inspector General Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Patna HC3 Apr 2025CR. MISC./42928/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court allows release of seized vigilance-trap cash of Rs. 86,800/- to accused Chandan Kumar on personal bond; S. 239 Cr.P.C. discharge prayer withdrawn and not decided; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Ss. 7/13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna order dated 10.07.2015 set aside only to extent of release; enquiry concluded cash not disproportionate to legal income; no nexus found with alleged bribe of Rs. 12,000/-; Vigilance Investigation Bureau raised no objection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to release the seized cash of Rs. 86,800/- to the petitioner on his personal bond; impugned order set aside only to the extent of such release. ¶20

Chandan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar Through Deputy Inspector… — Corruption | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the trial court to release the seized cash of Rs. 86,800/- to the petitioner on his personal bond; impugned order set aside only to the extent of such release.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's prayer for release of the seized cash of Rs. 86,800/-, rejected by the trial court's order dated 10.07.2015, should be allowed (the discharge-related part under Section 239 Cr.P.C. having been given up by the petitioner).

¶17

Court's answer

The instant petition stands allowed and the trial court is directed to release the seized cash amount of Rs. 86,800/- in favour of the petitioner on his personal bond.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The order impugned (trial court's order dated 10.07.2015) is set aside only to the extent of releasing the seized amount of Rs. 86,800/-.

¶20

Key takeaways

A ground for allowing release was that the Vigilance Department had no objection, the enquiry having concluded that the seized cash of Rs. 86,800/- was not disproportionate to the petitioner's legal source of income.ratio¶18
The materials before the Court showed no connection between the seized cash of Rs. 86,800/- and the alleged crime of taking bribe of Rs. 12,000/-.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42928 of 2015 (High Court of Judicature at Patna, Shailendra Singh, J., oral order dated 03-04-2025) - Petition for quashing the common order dated 10.07.2015 of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009 (Special Case No. 39 of 2009), registered under Sections 7/13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner gave up the discharge-related part (application dated 02.05.2013 under Section 239 Cr.P.C.) and pressed only the prayer for release of seized cash of Rs. 86,800/- (application dated 23.12.2013). The Vigilance Investigation Bureau raised no objection, the completed enquiry having found the seized cash not disproportionate to the petitioner's legal source of income, and the materials showed no connection between the seized cash and the alleged bribe of Rs. 12,000/-. Petition allowed: trial court directed to release Rs. 86,800/- on the petitioner's personal bond; impugned order set aside only to that extent.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42928 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2009 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Chandan Kumar Son of Yamuna Prasad, Resident of Mohallah - Khemni Chak, P.S. - Ram Krishna Nagar, Town and District - Patna Bihar.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar Through Deputy Inspector General Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. For the Vigilance : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.

¶10

======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

8 03-04-2025

¶13

1. The instant petition has been filed for quashing of

¶14

the common order dated 10.07.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009 (Special Case No. 39 of 2009) registered under Sections 7/13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereby and whereunder the Application dated 02.05.2013 filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') and Application dated 23.12.2013 for release of cash amounting to Rs. 86,800/by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶15

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press this application in respect of first part of the order dated 10.07.2015 whereby the petitioner's prayer for discharge made under

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42928 of 2015(8) dt.03-04-2025 2/3

¶17

Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C') has been rejected and wants to press only his second prayer relating to the second part of the said order by which the petitioner's prayer for release of cash amounting to Rs. 86,800/has been rejected by the trial court.

¶18

3. Heard both the sides and perused the relevant materials as well as order impugned. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, while pointing out the paragraph no. 23 of the counter affidavit, submits that after the completion of enquiry the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the seized cash amount of Rs. 86,800/- was not disproportionate to the legal source of income of the petitioner, therefore, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau has no objection in releasing the said seized amount in favour of the petitioner. As the Vigilance Department has now no opposition to the second prayer with regard to the releasing of the aforesaid amount and the trial court rejected the petitioner's prayer with regard to the releasing of the said amount mainly considering the pendency of an enquiry against the petitioner at that time in relation to seized amount but now the enquiry has been completed as per the statement made in the counter affidavit and further, the materials

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42928 of 2015(8) dt.03-04-2025 3/3

¶20

available before this Court do not show any kind of connection in between the seized cash of Rs. 86,800/- and the commission of the alleged crime relating to taking bribe of Rs. 12000/-, so, the instant petition stands allowed and the trial court is directed to release the seized cash amount of Rs. 86,800/- in favour of the petitioner on his personal bond and only to the extent of releasing the said amount the order impugned is hereby set aside.

¶21

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶22

Rajiv/-

¶23

U T

Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Deputy Inspector General Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Deputy Inspector General Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanji Singh @ Dhanji Yadav @ Shiv Nath Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Golu Yadav @ Golu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chote Singh @ Dharmendra Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Rafi Ahmad @ Rafi Ahmad and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Anr.

Phul Sundari Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.