Patna High Court
Suresh Prasad Singh @ Suresh Prasad ... vs The State Of Bihar on 26 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.349 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2019 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Suresh Prasad Singh @ Suresh Prasad Chaudhary S/o Shri Bakhri Singh
Resident of Shanti Nagar Market, West Patel Nagar, L.B S., Police Station-
Shastri Nagar, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Department of Vigilance
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Saket Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2025
1. The instant Revision Application is directed
against an order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the learned
Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, whereby and whereunder,
the learned Special Judge partially allowed the application
filed by the accused/petitioner and directed the concerned
Bank to allow the Revisionist to operate the bank account,
however, holding an amount of Rs. 16,54,931/-, credited
during the check period of alleged commission of offence.
2. It is pertinent to mention that FIR No. 26 of
2019 has been registered by the Vigilance Department,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
Patna for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
Sections 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the
Revisionist and his wife on the allegation, inter alia, that the
accused while discharging his duty as the Executive
Engineer, Road Construction Department had assessed
disproportionate assets to his known source of income
during the period between 21.10.1991 to 08.06.2019.
3. The case of the Revisionist, on the other hand,
is that he began his career in the Road Construction
Department of the State Government, when he was
appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer. He formally
joined the department by submitting his joining report on
October 1, 1991. From that point onward, he diligently
carried out his responsibilities and duties in accordance with
the rules, regulations, and laws governing the services of
the State Government.
4. Over the years, the applicant worked to fulfill
all the criteria and requirements necessary for career
advancement within the department. Upon successfully
meeting these conditions, he was granted promotion to the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
post of Executive Engineer. This promotion was formalized
through an official order issued on December 31, 2009,
however, the promotion was made effective retrospectively
from the year 2006.
5. After being promoted to the post of Executive
Engineer, the petitioner was initially posted at the Road
Construction Division, located in Begusarai, where he
continued to serve in his new capacity. Subsequently, he
was transferred within the department, taking charge as the
Executive Engineer of the Road Division in Patna (West).
Throughout these postings, the petitioner continued to serve
in the Road Construction Department of the State
Government, performing his duties as per the requirements
and expectations of his role. During his employment as the
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, he was
apprehended by the Vigilance Department, Patna in a Trap
Case while allegedly accepting bribe of Rs. 14,00,000/-.
After being apprehended, Vigilance Case No. 23 of 2019,
dated 08.06.2019, under Section 7(a)/12 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended 2018) and Sections 109
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
charge-sheet was submitted against the Revisionist.
6. The Vigilance Department filed the charge-
sheet in this case on 30th of September, 2022 and the matter
is currently pending at the stage of Section 207 of the
Criminal Procedure Code before the Learned Special Court
in Patna. During a search conducted at the residence of the
Revisionist, the Vigilance Department seized several
documents, including bank accounts, passbooks, cheque
books, and other papers. At the time the case was registered,
the Revisionist's salary account (Account No.
10076909819) was maintained with the State Bank of India,
Sheikhpura Branch, Rajabazar, Patna.
7. During investigation, the agency issued a notice
under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the concerned SBI branch to
obtain information relating to the aforementioned bank
account, which the bank duly provided and the said salary
account was frozen on the ground that the petitioner had
deposited proceeds of crime in the said account.
8. When the Revisionist/accused approached the
bank to withdraw some money from his salary account for
daily expenses, he was informed by the bank that his salary
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
account had been frozen on the directions of the Vigilance
Department.
9. The Learned Trial Court received an application
from the Revisionist requesting unfreezing of his salary
account. In response, the Vigilance Department submitted a
report to the Learned Trial Court regarding this application,
stating that while the Revisionist's account may be
unfrozen, the funds accumulated during the check period
ought not to be released.
10. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowers a Police Officer to seize certain property. The
provisions runs thus: -
"(1) Any police officer may
seize any property which may be
alleged or suspected to have been
stolen, or which may be found under
circumstances which create suspicion
of the Commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if
subordinate to the officer in charge of
a police station, shall forthwith report
the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
acting under Sub-Section (1) shall
forthwith report the seizure to the
Magistrate having jurisdiction and
where the property seized is such that
it cannot be, conveniently transported
to the Court or where there is difficulty
in securing proper accommodation for
the custody of such property, or where
the continued retention of the property
in police custody may not be
considered necessary for the purpose
of investigation, he may give custody
thereof to any person on his executing
a bond undertaking to produce the
property before the Court as and when
required and to give effect to the
further orders of the Court as to the
disposal of the same.
Provided that where the
property seized under Sub-Section (1)
is subject to speedy and natural decay
and if the person entitled to the
possession of such property is
unknown or absent and the value of
such property is less than five hundred
rupees, it may forthwith be sold by
auction under the orders of the
Superintendent of Police and the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
provisions of sections 457 and 458
shall, as nearly as may be practicable,
apply to the net proceeds of such
sale."
11. Plain reading of the above-mentioned
provision goes to suggest that any Police Officer may seize
any property which may be alleged or suspected to have
been stolen or which may be found under circumstances
which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence.
Thus, any article having nexus with commission of any
offence may be seized.
12. Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C.
obligates a Police Officer to report the seizure of any article
forthwith to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where
the property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently
transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in
securing proper accommodation for the custody of such
property, or where the continued retention of the property in
police custody may not be considered necessary for the
purpose of investigation, the Police Officer may give
custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond
undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
when required and to give effect to the further orders of the
Court as to the disposal of the same.
13. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer of this
case failed to comply with the provision of Section 102(3)
and failed to forthwith report the freezing of Bank account
of the Revisionist to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to use the seized money
from his salary account.
14. In support of his contention, the learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, reported in (1999) 7
SCC 685. In the said report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that bank account of accused or any of his relations
constitutes "property" and if circumstances exist create a
suspicion of commission of offence in relation to bank
account, Section 102(1) is attracted empowering the Police
Officer, investigating the offence, to seize the bank account
and issue order prohibiting the account from being operated
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
upon.
15. The learned Advocate for the petitioner next
refers to an unreported decision of this Court in the case of
M/s IMZ Corporate Private Limited & Anr. v. State of
Bihar & Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. No. 378 of 2020), decided on 23rd
of December, 2020. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners
prayed for issuance of writ/direction upon the Respondents
nos. 4 and 5 to forthwith withdraw their direction to the
bankers of the petitioner company being Respondent Nos. 6
and 7 for debit freeze of the bank accounts of the petitioner
company and to allow the petitioner to make debit
transaction in its account and also for issuance of writ in the
nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7
to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioner's company
with the respondent bank.
16. In this decision, a police case was registered
under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code on the basis of a written complaint submitted by
Respondent No. 8, Mr. Siddharth Kasana, being the
Director of one M/s MSD Telematics Private Limited that
used to provide GPS service in different departments, like,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
Excise, BSFC, Municipal Corporation and Mining
Department in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. It was
alleged that the complainant used to stay abroad and one
Ashmeet Singh was appointed as Director (Operation) of
the Company to look after its activities in Bihar and
Jharkhand. It is alleged that the said Asmeet Singh in
collusion with others misappropriated crores of rupees of
the company.
17. Police took up the case for investigation and
freezed bank accounts of the Petitioner No. 1/company
under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
18. This Court under the above-mentioned facts
and circumstances held that sub-section (1) of Section 102
Cr.P.C. talks of power of a Police Officer to seize any
property which may be alleged or suspected to have been
stolen. In the present case, the allegation is not of stealing
any property by Petitioner No. 1. The allegation was that Sri
Ashmeet Singh entered into a conspiracy with other
employees and misappropriated the money lying in the
account of Petitioner No. 1. Under such circumstances, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed Respondent Nos.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
6 and 7 to allow the Petitioner No. 1 to operate its bank
account in its usual course of business.
19. The factual circumstances of the instant case is
absolutely different from the facts of the above-mentioned
unreported decision.
20. This is a case of disproportionate assets of the
petitioner in excess of his known source of income. The
Investigating Officer found that a sum of Rs. 16,54,931/-
was deposited during the check period in the salary account
of the petitioner. The said amount was over and above the
amount which was received by the petitioner as his salary.
21. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner also refers to another unreported decision in
CRM-M-12969-2022 (O & M) pronounced on 2nd of
December, 2023 by a Co-ordinate Bench of Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Arvinderjeet Kaur Puri.
22. The Co-ordinate Bench of Punjab & Haryana
High Court, on examination of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.,
held that the requirement of such a seizure is that there must
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
be a nexus between the bank account and the offence
alleged, so as to give rise to a suspicion qua the commission
of an offence.
23. It is submitted by the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case
only salary of the petitioner was deposited and there was no
nexus between the bank account and the alleged offence.
Moreover, no intervening circumstances have been brought
to the notice of this Court which would warrant freezing of
the bank accounts of the petitioner, more so, since the CBI
has not disputed that the bank accounts of the petitioner
were not made part of the charges-sheet or the case
property.
24. Same view was taken by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Cr. Revision No. 200 of 2022,
Anita Aggarwal v. State of H.P., decided on 9th of March,
2023.
25. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors.,
reported in (2024) 7 SCC 23 was pleased to consider the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
scope of Section 102 and 102(3) of the Cr.P.C. While
examining an order passed by the High Court of Madras
allowing the claim of the respondent-accused for defreezing
of their bank accounts, in paragraph no. 16 of the judgment,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder: -
"16. This requires us to
consider whether validity of the seizure
order is contingent on compliance with
the reporting obligation? In our view,
the validity of the power exercised
under Section 102(1)CrPC is not
dependent on the compliance with the
duty prescribed on the police officer
under Section 102(3)CrPC. The
validity of the exercise of power under
Section 102(1)CrPC can be questioned
either on jurisdictional grounds or on
the merits of the matter. That is to say,
the order of seizure can be challenged
on the ground that the seizing officer
lacked jurisdiction [Nevada Properties
(P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
(2019) 20 SCC 119 : (2020) 3 SCC
(Cri) 782] to act under Section
102(1)CrPC or that the seized item
does not satisfy the definition of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
"property" [Swaran Sabharwal v.
Delhi Police, 1987 SCC OnLine Del
221 : (1990) 68 Comp Case 652] or on
the ground that the property which was
seized could not have given rise to
suspicion concerning the commission
of a crime, in order for the authorities
to justify the seizure."
26. In the instant case, it is the grievance of the
petitioner that freezing of bank account was not reported
forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Even assuming
that the Investigating Officer failed to report seizure of bank
account forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate, its
validity cannot be called upon to question.
27. Relying on the aforesaid judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shento Varghese (supra), this
Court can safely held that the validity of the exercise of
power under Section 102(1) can be questioned either on
jurisdictional grounds or on the merits of the matter.
28. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of the
Investigating Officer. From the materials on record, this
Court finds that the amount of money, which was not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.349 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
directed to be used by the petitioner is the amount deposited
by him in the bank account during the check period. Thus,
there is prima facie reason to hold that the said money is a
part of tainted property. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge
correctly refused the prayer of the petitioner to defreeze the
said bank account.
29. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and
accordingly the instant Revision is dismissed on contest.
30. However, there shall no order as to costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 18.06.2025
Uploading Date 26.06.2025
Transmission Date 26.06.2025
