Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court has ruled on the proper custody of seized cash, bank accounts, and property documents in a case involving allegations of illegal gratification and disproportionate assets. The petitioners, who are relatives of a public servant accused of accepting a bribe of ₹10,000, had requested the release of their frozen bank accounts, fixed deposits, and seized property deeds. Their plea was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash an earlier order passed by the Special Vigilance Court.
Initially, during a raid at the residence of the accused public servant in a bribery case, authorities seized cash, jewellery, account books, and legal documents. While the jewellery was returned to the petitioners based on a prior court order, their other requests were denied due to the pendency of a separate Disproportionate Assets (D.A.) case.
The petitioners argued that the seized items had no connection with the bribery charge, which was limited to ₹10,000. They claimed that the bank accounts, cash, and deeds belonged to them and not to the accused, and were not relevant to the bribery case.
The Vigilance Department opposed this view, maintaining that the items were important evidence in the D.A. case (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2015) where the petitioners themselves were under investigation.
The High Court agreed partially with the petitioners. It noted that the seized items were not relevant to the original bribery case (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 41/2010) and should not be kept as part of that case. However, since the items were also cited in the D.A. case—which is still ongoing—they must remain in custody under that case.
Therefore, the Court directed the Vigilance Court to remove the items from the records of the bribery case and officially treat them as evidence in the D.A. case. This allows for proper legal handling while safeguarding the petitioners’ rights.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling is important for several reasons. It reinforces that evidence must be properly linked to the specific offence for which it is seized. Courts cannot continue to hold property without showing its relevance to the case at hand. The judgment also clarifies that when multiple cases are pending, each must be handled distinctly in terms of evidence management.
For the public, especially those related to accused persons, the case underscores the importance of showing that seized assets are unconnected with any alleged offence. For government agencies, it emphasizes procedural discipline and lawful handling of evidence.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether seized bank accounts, cash, and deeds were relevant to the bribery case (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 41/2010):
- Court’s Decision: No. The High Court found no relevance of these items to the bribery case and directed they be removed from its custody.
- Whether these items can be retained in connection with the pending D.A. case (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2015):
- Court’s Decision: Yes. Since they have been cited and exhibited in the D.A. case, they must remain as seized items under that case.
Case Title
Qudsia Bano @ Shagufta Yasmin & Ors. v. The State of Bihar through Vigilance, Investigation Bureau
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37475 of 2016
Citation(s)- 2025 (1) PLJR 127
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad — for the Petitioners
- Mr. Arvind Kumar — for the State (Vigilance)
Link to Judgment
NiMzNzQ3NSMyMDE2IzEzI04=-iWUrpZksF28=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
