{"id":92402,"date":"2008-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-17T11:55:56","modified_gmt":"2017-04-17T06:25:56","slug":"shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00408 dated 23.3.2007\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant        -          Shri Ranjit Singh\nRespondent           -      Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By his application of 16.10.2006 Shri Ranjit Singh of Ballabhgarh Haryana
\napplied to Shri R.R. Sahay, SP & CPIO, SCR-II, CBI seeking the following
\ninformation with regard to investigation in case No. RC14(S) 99-SIV\/SIC-II-CBI
\nu\/s 302\/201:\n<\/p>\n
         “i)    Progress Report of the four I.Os. that what investigation they
\n                have carried out after the reference of the matter to CBI and
\n                what directions you have given to them.<\/p>\n
         ii)    To supply the copy of statements of public or any other
\n                witness, if any, recorded by IOs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         iii)   To supply the copy of statement of the accused person if any
\n                recorded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         iv)    Or any other progress, if any done during the course of
\n                investigation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     To this he received a response dated 14.11.06 from Shri R. R. Sahay, SP
\nCBI SCR-II refusing the information as exempt u\/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
\nShri Ranjit Singh then moved his first appeal before DIG CBI SCR-II on 24.11.06
\nupon which he received an order of 10.1.07 from Shri Alok Ranjan, DIG, CBI
\nholding as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “The CPIO has rightly claimed exemption u\/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act
\n         2005 as disclosure of this information is likely to impede the
\n         process of investigation. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Appellant’s prayer before us is as below:\n<\/p>\n
         a) “Accept the appeal of the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
       b) the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the
\n         Respondent No. 1 and the impugned order dated 10.1.2007
\n         passed by the Respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      c) directing the respondent No 1 to supply the information as
\n         sought for in the application dated 16.10.2006 to the
\n         appellant forthwith.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      d) Any other order\/relief which the Hon’ble Commission may
\n         deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
\n         case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In his response to the appeal notice, Shri Alok Ranjan DIG, CBI has, after a
\ndetailed discussion on the merits of the Criminal case regarding which
\ninformation has been sought, concluded with the following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
      “Since this matter is sub judice in the Court of law and the
\n      investigation of this case is still going on, the appellant has got
\n      every opportunity to approach the Ld. Trial court and place his
\n      request there. The case is still under investigation, hence the
\n      exemptions sought by CPIO u\/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005 is
\n      justified.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appeal was heard on 20.6.’08. The following appeared:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant
\n            Shri Ranjit Singh
\n            Shri Bhagat Singh<\/p>\n
      Respondents
\n           Shri Subhash Kundu, Inspector CBI<\/p>\n
     Shri Subhash Kundu, representing respondents, submitted that both CPIO
\nand Appellate Authority were unable to attend and requested a date after 7.7.08.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While appellant Shri Ranjit Singh submitted that he had no objection to a short
\nadjournment, he wished to bring to our notice the grave injustice that has been
\ndone to him by the Department.      This hearing was, therefore, adjourned to
\n17.7.2008 at 10.30 a.m. However, the attention of respondents was invited to
\nthe ruling of Hon’ble Ravinder Bhat, J. in W.P. 3114\/2007 – Shri Bhagat Singh
\nVs. C.I.C & Ors of High Court of Delhi, as per which convincing and substantive<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span>
\n reasons will have to be submitted if exemption from disclosure is sought u\/s 8(1)\n<\/p>\n
(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the following appeared before us on 17.7.08:\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant
\n             Shri Ranjit Singh
\n             Shri Bhagat Singh<\/p>\n
       Respondents
\n            Shri R. R. Sahay SP, CBI, SCR-II
\n            Shri Subhash Kundu, Inspector
\n            Shri Madhavendra Saraswat<\/p>\n
      Appellant submitted that it has taken nine years for the investigation to be
\ncompleted having been registered on 22.1.99. He, therefore, suspects malafide
\nintent on behalf of the investigating agency in having delayed the result. This was
\nbecause in his view, there was heavy police involvement at the level of SP in the
\nmurder of his brother and the police fraternity was therefore anxious to protect
\ncolleagues. He further submitted that he had been in touch with respondents
\nwho had conveyed to him the necessity of interviewing one Shri Bharat Pal in
\nconnection with the investigation. This individual then in prison had in fact been
\nmet with.     Appellant, therefore, needed to satisfy himself that the delay in
\ninvestigation was justified and that there was in fact no attempt to cover up
\nsuspicion as that which prompted the Hon’ble High Court to order re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
     CPIO Shri R.R. Sahay, SP, CBI submitted that the investigation had not continued
\nfor nine years, but the ongoing investigation had commenced only on the orders of High
\nCourt on 11.12.03. This is now nearing closure with the investigation blocked for
\nreasons shown to us in the file during the hearing but not disclosed. The information
\nsought by appellant i.e. progress reports, is held in the form of case diaries, disclosure of
\nwhich would constitute a serious impediment to the completion of investigation. He
\nmoreover invited our attention to sec. 172 CrPC on the question of disclosure of
\ninformation held in case diaries. Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
                                             3<\/span>
\n relates to case diary of proceedings in investigation. The same is reproduced as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
           (1)       Every police officer making an investigation under this
\n                     Chapter shall day by day enter his proceeding in the
\n                     investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the
\n                     information reached him, the time at which he began and
\n                     closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him,
\n                     and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through
\n                     his investigation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2)      Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case
\n                     under inquiry or trial in such court, and may use such diaries,
\n                     not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or
\n                     trial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3)       Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to
\n                     call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to
\n                     see them merely because they are referred to by the
\n                     court1; but, if they, are used by the police officer who made
\n                     them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the
\n                     purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of
\n                     section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian
\n                     Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
         Having heard the arguments and examined the documents, we find that the
\nquestion of disclosure hinges on the issue of law i.e. the application of sec. 172
\nCr.P.C. to this case.           As is clear from the quote from Cr.P.C. above, the
\ninformation sought by appellant, if given in the form that is requested, would
\namount to violation of sec. 172 Cr.P.C, under which this document is privileged
\neven with regard to the accused. On the other hand we have before us the
\ndecision of disclosure u\/s 8(1) (h) of Hon’ble Ravinder Bhat J. in W.P. No.
\n3114\/2007 – Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. C.I.C & Ors of High Court of Delhi. In this
\ncase Hon’ble Ravinder Bhat, J. has held as follows with specific regard to Sec.
\n8(1) (h):\n<\/p>\n
           11.   “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
\n           United Nations in 1948, assured by Article 19, everyone the right
\n1<\/span>
\n    Highlight ours<\/p>\n
                                                4<\/span>
\n “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
\nmedia, regardless of frontiers”. In Secretary Ministry of Information
\nand Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association
\nof Bengal and others<\/a> (1995 (2) SCC 161) the Supreme Court
\nremarket about this right in the following terms:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the
\n      right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free
\n      speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary
\n      that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a
\n      range of opinions on all public issues. A successful
\n      democracy posits an “aware” citizenry. Diversity of opinions,
\n      views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizen
\n      to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This right to information, was explicitly held to be our fundamental
\nright under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India for the first
\ntime by Justice K. K. Mathew in the State of UP vs. Raj Narain,
\n(1975) (4) SCC 428. This view was followed by the Supreme Court
\non a number of decisions and after public demand; the Right to
\nInformation Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.    The Act is an effectuation of the Right to freedom of speech
\nand expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society,
\ninformation and access to information holds the key to resources,
\nbenefits and distribution of powers. Information, more than any
\nother element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By
\none fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official
\nbarriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept
\naside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few
\nexceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in
\nthe possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by
\nthe Act.     As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the
\nenactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to
\nhold the government’s and its instrumentalities accountable to the
\ngoverned. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while
\nconstruing the provisions contained therein.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule
\nand exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a
\nrestriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly
\nconstrued. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the
\nvery right self. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
\ninformation is granted if it would impede the process of
\ninvestigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
\ninformation, the authority withholding information must show
\nsatisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span>
\n       would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be
\n      germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should
\n      be reasonable and based on some material.             Sans this
\n      consideration, section 8(1) (h) and other such provisions would
\n      become the haven for dodging demands for information.\n<\/p>\n
      14.    A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like
\n      the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The Contextual
\n      background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions,
\n      outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to
\n      provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the
\n      rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to
\n      be construed in their terms, there is some authority supporting this
\n      view (See Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta<\/a> 2005 (2) SCC201, B.
\n      R. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V.
\n      Tulasamma vs. Sesha Reddy<\/a> 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a
\n      different approach would result in narrowing the rights and
\n      approving a judicially mandated class of restrictions on the rights
\n      under the Act, which is unwarranted.”\n<\/p>\n
     In this case the Court took serious notice of the two year delay in releasing
\nof information and the lack of adequate reasoning of the orders of PIO and
\nappellate authority.    S Ravinder Bhat J specifically notes, “As held in the
\npreceding part of the judgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation
\nprocess would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices
\nwere issued to the assessee, the respondents could not have rejected the
\nrequest for granting information. The CIC, even after overruling the objection,
\nshould not have imposed the condition that information could be disclosed only
\nafter recovery was made.”\n<\/p>\n
     In light of the above, and in view of the commitment made before us by
\nCPIO Shri R.R. Sahay, we direct that the investigating agency make every effort
\nto complete the investigation, which has already taken excessively long, within
\nthe next two months, if not earlier.        Immediately upon conclusion of the
\ninvestigation and with the filing of the charge sheet, the information sought and
\nnot exempt u\/s 8 sub-section(1) will be provided to appellant Shri Ranjit Singh. If
\nit is found so exempt reasons for refusal will require to be so spelt out as to<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n satisfy the need for exemption to a normal law abiding individual. This process
\nwill be completed at any rate by 30.9.2008.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is thus partly allowed. Announced in the hearing.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n17.7.2008<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n17.7.2008<\/p>\n
                                          7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00408 dated 23.3.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Ranjit Singh Respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Facts : By his application of 16.10.2006 Shri Ranjit Singh of Ballabhgarh […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-17T06:25:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T06:25:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2052,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T06:25:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-17T06:25:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T06:25:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008"},"wordCount":2052,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008","name":"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T06:25:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ranjit-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ranjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 17 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}