{"id":96890,"date":"2011-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-02T04:12:29","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T22:42:29","slug":"smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Dharnidhar Jha<\/div>\n
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n\n         Criminal Writ   Petition No.244 of 2011\n\n     In the matter of an application under Article 226\n     and 227 of the Constitution of India.\n\n\n1. Balmiki Singh, Son of Late Ram Avtar Prasad\n2. Smt. Indira Devi wife of Sri Balmiki Singh,\n3. Amarjeet Kumar, Son of Sri Balmiki Singh &\n4. Samarjeet Kumar, Son of Sri Balmiki Singh,\n         All residents of Besides Shiv Mandir Gali,\nSheikhpura,    P.S.Hawai     Adda,    P.O.-B.V.College,\nDistrict-Patna               ...   ....    Petitioners\n\n                           Versus\n\n1. The State Of Bihar,\n2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.\n3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.\n4. Additional Director general of Police, Vigilance\nInvestigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna.\n5.   The  Inspector   General    of  Police,  Vigilance\nInvestigation, Patna.\n6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.\n7. The District Magistrate, Patna District.\n8.    The   Superintendent     of   Police,   Vigilance\nInvestigation Bureau, Bihar,6, Circular Road, Patna.\n9. Dy.Superintedent of Police Department of Vigilance,\nInvestigation Bureau, Bihar, 6, Circular Road, Patna.\n10.Sri Prakash Nath Mishra, Son of Sri Amarnath\nMishra, Senior Dy.S.P.,Vigilance Investigation Bureau\n6, Circular Road, Patna.\n11. Sri Shekhar Kumar, Son of Shri Shiv Narayan\nPrasad, Senior Dy.S.P.,Vigilance Investigation Bureau,\nPatna.\n12. Sri Srikant Rai S\/O not known, Police Inspector of\nVigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna.\n13. Sri Shiv Chandra Singh, Dy.S.P.,Vigilance Bureau,\nBihar, Patna.\n14. The Officer Incharge of Hawai Adda Police Station,\nPatna.\n15. Sri Anand Jain S\/O Late Budhsain Jain, resident of\nDU\/52, First Floor, Uttari Pitampura, Delhi-88.\n16. Smt. Mamta Jain, W\/O Sri Anand Jain, resident of\nDU\/52, First Floor, Uttari Pitampura, Delhi-88.\n17. Sanjay Kumar, Excise Superintendent, Office of the\nExcise Deputy Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. &\nOrs\n                              ....   .... Respondents\n                                                2\n\n\n\n\n                                                    With\n\n                              CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1196 OF             2010\n\n                           Against the order dated 16.07.2010 passed by\n                           Special   Judge,   Vigilance-Ist,  Patna    in\n                           Special Case No.62 of 2009.\n                                             ------\n<\/pre>\n
                    1. Smt. Indra Devi, W\/O Balmiki Singh,\n<\/p>\n
                    2. Sri Balmiki Singh, Son of Late Ramaudar Prasad Singh
\n                    &\n<\/p>\n
                    3. Sri Samar jeet Kumar, S\/O Balmiki Singh.
\n                    All resident of Mohalla-Shaikhpura beside Shiv Mandir
\n                    Gali, P.S. Hawai Adda, District-Patna.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ....   ....    Petitioners\n                                             Versus\n\n                    State Of Bihar Through Vigilance....             ....      Respondent\n\n<\/pre>\n
                    For the Petitioners: Sri Shakil Ahmad Khan,
\n                                              Senior Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
                                         Sri Indu Bhushan, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
                    For the Respondent:- Sri Arvind Ujjwal, S.C.25.\n<\/p>\n
                                         Sri Sushil Kumar Mallik,
\n                                                  A.C. to S.C.25
\n                    For the Vigilance:- Sri Arvind Kumar,
\n                                             Law Officer, Vigilance.\n<\/p>\n
                                 (In Cr.W.J.C.No.244 of 2011 &
\n                                   Cr.Revision No.1196 of 2010, both)<\/p>\n
                                              P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                             THE HON\u201fBLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA<\/p>\n
Dharnidhar Jha,J.            These     two    petitions      arise   out    of   Vigilance<\/p>\n
                    P.S.Case No.62 of 2009 pending before Special Judge,<\/p>\n
                    Patna.   They    have    been    heard   together      and   are   being<\/p>\n
                    disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
                             2.     The Criminal Writ Petition has been filed<\/p>\n
                    by Balmiki Singh, his wife and their two sons out of<\/p>\n
                    whom Smt. Indra Devi wife of Balmiki Singh, Balmiki<\/p>\n
                    Singh    himself    and    his     son    Samarjeet      Kumar,     have
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
preferred       the    Criminal          Revision       Petition     also.      The<\/p>\n
Criminal Writ Petition has been filed for issuing the<\/p>\n
writ in the nature either of certiorari or mandamus for<\/p>\n
quashing        the         seizure         list-cum-inventory                dated<\/p>\n
12.06.2009 under which cash amounting to rupees Twenty<\/p>\n
lakhs and some important documents as also Tata Indica<\/p>\n
vehicle bearing registration no.BR-IX-8245 were seized.<\/p>\n
The further prayer is to issue suitable directions for<\/p>\n
initiating appropriate legal action against the erring<\/p>\n
respondents who were the officials of the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department,       Bihar        with       further       directions       to     the<\/p>\n
Government of Bihar to provide suitable compensation to<\/p>\n
petitioners       as    they       had    been    unnecessarily          agonized<\/p>\n
mentally    and       had    been     put    to    economic      loss    besides<\/p>\n
being abashed in the society.\n<\/p>\n
           3.     The       above     reliefs      have     been     sought    for<\/p>\n
under   the     facts       that    the     officers      of   the    Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department       who    are    respondents          no.10      to   13   entered<\/p>\n
inside the house of the petitioners and conducted a<\/p>\n
search of it during which course rupees Twenty lakhs in<\/p>\n
cash    with    some        documents       as    per    seizure     memo      were<\/p>\n
recovered       as per inventory-cum-seizure list(Annexure-<\/p>\n
6). Other articles were also found there and they were<\/p>\n
all seized and a copy of the seizure list was handed<\/p>\n
over to petitioners Balmiki Singh and his two sons. Out<\/p>\n
of   the   total       seized       amount,       some    part      of    it    was
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
returned        to    the     petitioner          Balmiki        Singh   and   the<\/p>\n
remaining       sum     of    money         was   kept      by    the    Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department.\n<\/p>\n
           4.        As per replies of the respondents the sum<\/p>\n
of   money       which       had       been    kept    in    custody      of   the<\/p>\n
petitioners           belonged         to     Sanjay     Kumar,     accused     of<\/p>\n
Vigilance P.S. Case No.62 of 2009 who happens to be the<\/p>\n
son-in-law of petitioner Balmiki Singh. On account of<\/p>\n
recovery of the cash, etc. another case, vide P.S.Case<\/p>\n
No.86 of 2009, was registered regarding the acquisition<\/p>\n
of properties disproportionate to the known sources of<\/p>\n
income of accused Sanjay Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
           5.        It appears that the petitioners had moved<\/p>\n
the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna seeking<\/p>\n
the release of Rs.4,63,458\/- to the petitioners along<\/p>\n
with the car and further cash amount of Rs.2,41,599\/-.<\/p>\n
           6.        The contention was that Section 102 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
does empower any police officer to make a search of any<\/p>\n
house or premises, etc. on suspicion that any property<\/p>\n
which   could         have    been      obtained       after      commission   of<\/p>\n
theft or which was suspected to be subject matter of<\/p>\n
commission of any offence may be seized by the police.<\/p>\n
It was contended that as soon as the seizure had been<\/p>\n
made, Section 102(3) requires that the report thereof<\/p>\n
must be made, to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in<\/p>\n
the matter forthwith. It was contended that the word
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201eforthwith\u201f has been explained by various judgments in<\/p>\n
different        context   and   it     has      been   held     that       there<\/p>\n
should not be any unreasonable time lag in making the<\/p>\n
report and as such delay of over two months in lodging<\/p>\n
the    case      and   showing    the       recovered        properties       and<\/p>\n
articles as the subject matters of that case is not to<\/p>\n
be countenanced as may be evident from the language of<\/p>\n
Section       102(3)Cr.P.C.       It       was    contended          that     the<\/p>\n
inventory and seizure be quashed and the reliefs as<\/p>\n
sought for including the direction to the investigating<\/p>\n
agency to release the properties\/documents seized from<\/p>\n
the house of the petitioners be granted.<\/p>\n
            7.     When the learned counsel rose                 up to make<\/p>\n
submissions on the two petitions on 19.09.2011, the<\/p>\n
court had pointed out to him the provision of                          Section<\/p>\n
22 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 which creates<\/p>\n
a     bar     in    maintaining        a     \u201esuit      or     other        legal<\/p>\n
proceedings\u201f in respect of any money or property or<\/p>\n
both ordered to be confiscated under Section 15 of the<\/p>\n
said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners in<\/p>\n
the two petitions took time to examine the provision,<\/p>\n
whereas the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department         also    sought          adjournment         for     seeking<\/p>\n
instructions. Affidavit has been filed by the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department indicating as if the confiscation proceeding<\/p>\n
has now been initiated in respect of the subject matter
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Vigilance P.S.Cases no.69 and 46 both of 2009<\/p>\n
regarding the disproportionate assets acquired by the<\/p>\n
accused Sanjay Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
           8.     It was contended by Sri Shakil Ahmad Khan,<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that unless an order<\/p>\n
had been passed the bar under Section 22 of the Act<\/p>\n
shall not apply. Section 22 of the Act reads as under:-<\/p>\n
        “Bar to other Proceedings.-Save as provided in
\nSection 9 and 17 and notwithstanding anything contained
\nin any other law, no suit or other legal proceedings
\nshall be maintainable in any Court in respect of any
\nmoney or property or both ordered to be confiscated
\nunder Section 15.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           9.   The language of the Section indicates as if<\/p>\n
the mere pendency of confiscation proceedings may not<\/p>\n
operate as a bar to maintaining any suit or other legal<\/p>\n
proceeding because the words \u201eordered to be confiscated<\/p>\n
under Section 15\u201f, appearing in Section 22 of the Act,<\/p>\n
clearly indicates that the bar may operate only when<\/p>\n
the properties have been ordered to be confiscated.<\/p>\n
However, if the proceedings for                  confiscation of the<\/p>\n
proceedings       has    been       initiated   and   that    is    pending<\/p>\n
adjudication       of    the    Authorized      Officer,     then    in   my<\/p>\n
considered view, any Court, even acting under Article<\/p>\n
226 or 227 of Constitution of India should refrain from<\/p>\n
interfering       with    the        special    proceedings    after       an<\/p>\n
application under Section 13 of the Act has been filed<\/p>\n
as   the   very    interference         shall    be   obstructing         the
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
exercise of a very special power of a special forum<\/p>\n
and thus frustrate the object of the Act for which it<\/p>\n
was enacted. Further, the confiscation proceeding to be<\/p>\n
initiated or already initiated, in any case, has never<\/p>\n
to end in a final order, it may be challenged under<\/p>\n
Section 17 of the Act before this Court and in case any<\/p>\n
instances of prejudice or other illegality was pointed<\/p>\n
out, this Court may set the same right. Acting under<\/p>\n
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution may not allow an<\/p>\n
appropriate lawful forum to exercise its jurisdiction<\/p>\n
to adjudicate the proceedings and pass a final order<\/p>\n
under Section 15 of the Act. In the present view of<\/p>\n
mine,    I    am     of    the       opinion     that   neither     the    writ<\/p>\n
petition       nor        the    criminal         revision    petition       is<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
             10.    However, considering the importance of the<\/p>\n
issue    as    to    whether         the   officers     of   the    Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department were justified in making the search of the<\/p>\n
house of the petitioners and seize the properties as<\/p>\n
per     inventory-cum-seizure              memo     (Annexure-6)      without<\/p>\n
registering         the     first       information      report,     I     have<\/p>\n
decided to proceed to decide this particular question.<\/p>\n
             11.     Police has a statutory, solemn power of<\/p>\n
investigating a case after registering the FIR. The<\/p>\n
power of the police to investigate a cognizable case<\/p>\n
flows    from      the     provisions       of    Sections    156    and    157
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Section 156 empowers an officer-in-charge of a<\/p>\n
police   station      to        investigate    any     cognizable    case<\/p>\n
without the order of the Magistrate who may have the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction       over    such       local   area.    It   may   further<\/p>\n
appear from sub-Section(2)               to that      Section that the<\/p>\n
power    of    a    police          officer   to      investigate    such<\/p>\n
cognizable case could never be questioned through any<\/p>\n
proceeding at any stage of the investigation on the<\/p>\n
ground that such police officer was not enjoying the<\/p>\n
power. On perusal of Section 157 Cr.P.C. what appears<\/p>\n
is that the investigation of a cognizance case may be<\/p>\n
initiated by any officer empowered under Section 156<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. if he has reason to suspect the commission of<\/p>\n
an offence and if he starts the investigation he shall<\/p>\n
have to send the report of the same to a Magistrate<\/p>\n
empowered to take cognizance of such offences upon a<\/p>\n
police report. What follows from the provision is that<\/p>\n
there may not be any bar or prohibition in proceeding<\/p>\n
to   investigate          any       information,      raising     even   a<\/p>\n
suspicion of commission of any cognizable offence and<\/p>\n
if the police stumbles upon material evidence showing<\/p>\n
commission of such offence or offences, it may collect<\/p>\n
them and later on register the First Information Report<\/p>\n
and send the report to the Magistrate as soon as he has<\/p>\n
drawn up the First Information Report. Collection of<\/p>\n
evidence being the only purpose of an investigation,
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
there is no harm that the police prepared the documents<\/p>\n
in respect of those steps of investigating the case.<\/p>\n
However, this power of police is never qualified by the<\/p>\n
fact that it should always first institute the FIR and<\/p>\n
then proceed to investigate the case. If the provision<\/p>\n
of Section 157 Cr.P.C. be construed that way, then the<\/p>\n
whole    purpose    of    empowering        the    police   officer    to<\/p>\n
investigate a cognizable case merely on suspicion shall<\/p>\n
be frustrated. It could best be illustrated by the very<\/p>\n
facts of the present case. The police was investigating<\/p>\n
the acquisition of disproportionate assets by accused<\/p>\n
Sanjay Kumar who happened to be the son-in-law of the<\/p>\n
petitioner Balmiki Singh. The police had information<\/p>\n
that the said accused had stashed his illegally amassed<\/p>\n
money    or   other      properties     at    different       places   by<\/p>\n
putting the same in custody of different persons. If<\/p>\n
the police was to register the case first and then was<\/p>\n
to go to search the places then there might have been a<\/p>\n
very    strong     possibility       that    the    persons    in   whose<\/p>\n
custody the properties had been put could have removed<\/p>\n
or concealed the properties to such an extent as to<\/p>\n
making it inaccessible by the police officers. This is<\/p>\n
the reason that in the cases of the present nature,<\/p>\n
generally the police conducts the raids, searches the<\/p>\n
premises      or   houses       or   even    different      banking    or<\/p>\n
financial institutions where the accused is suspected
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
to have stashed his properties either in the form of<\/p>\n
money or in any other form and, thereafter sits down to<\/p>\n
stitch up the facts to frame the FIR for filing the<\/p>\n
report with the Magistrate with all copies of seizure<\/p>\n
memoes, etc. If the above procedure is not followed,<\/p>\n
then it could be almost in every case that no property<\/p>\n
could be recovered or seized. It could be in the above<\/p>\n
background     that     the        word    \u201eforthwith\u201f      has   to     be<\/p>\n
construed.\n<\/p>\n
         12.    It is not that only this Court is taking<\/p>\n
the present view and the same was never taken by any<\/p>\n
other court that the police may, first, go to search a<\/p>\n
premises or any place suspected to store the stolen<\/p>\n
property or any other property which may be the subject<\/p>\n
matter of commission of any offence and recover the<\/p>\n
same and thereafter register the case. It is true that<\/p>\n
generally     the    police    registers       the   FIR   in   cases   of<\/p>\n
general nature involving general offences under the IPC<\/p>\n
or any other law and thereafter proceeds to investigate<\/p>\n
the case, but that is not always the rule. In cases in<\/p>\n
which there could be suspicion of commission of any<\/p>\n
other offence, it is always               permissible for the police<\/p>\n
that   they    go,    first,       to     conduct    the   searches     and<\/p>\n
recover the properties and then file the report. This<\/p>\n
question was considered, probably, for the first time<\/p>\n
by the Privy Council in Emperor Vrs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad
\n                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
reported in AIR 1945 Privy Council 18. It was held by<\/p>\n
their Lordships as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “But, in any case, the receipt and recording of
\nan information report is not a condition precedent to
\nthe setting in motion of a criminal investigation. No
\ndoubt in the great majority of cases, criminal
\nprosecutions are undertaken as a result of information
\nreceived and recorded in this way but their Lordships
\nsee no reason why the police, if in possession through
\ntheir own knowledge or by means of credible though
\ninformal intelligence which genuinely leads them to the
\nbelief that a cognizable offence has been committed,
\nshould   not   of   their   own   motion   undertake  an
\ninvestigation into the truth of the matters alleged.
\nSection 157, Criminal P.C., when directing that a
\npolice officer, who has reason to suspect from
\ninformation or otherwise that an offence which he is
\nempowered to investigate under S.156 has been committed
\nshall   proceed    to    investigate   the    facts  and
\ncircumstances, supports this view. In truth the
\nprovisions as to an information report (commonly called
\na first information report) are enacted for other
\nreasons. Its object is to obtain early information of
\nalleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances
\nbefore there is time for them to be forgotten or
\nembellished, and it has to be remembered that the
\nreport can be put in evidence when the informant is
\nexamined if it is desired to do so.”\n<\/p>\n
           13.   Thus,     what      may   appear   from   the   above<\/p>\n
observations of the Privy Council, the police is duly<\/p>\n
entitled to conduct the searches first on account of<\/p>\n
some   exigencies    and   seize      properties\/documents,       etc.<\/p>\n
and thereafter to register the report. It is true that<\/p>\n
conducting a search and seizing a property are part of<\/p>\n
investigation, but criminal law could not be put into a<\/p>\n
straight    jacket   so    as   to    be   blinded   by    procedural<\/p>\n
technicalities. It has always to be interpreted in such<\/p>\n
a way as to permitting investigations, inquiries and
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
trials to eliminate commission of offence and further<\/p>\n
the cause of justice by allowing proper collection of<\/p>\n
evidence     and      then         putting      them        together      through<\/p>\n
different    reports         or     documents      before      the       court   of<\/p>\n
justice for adjudication of the indictment.<\/p>\n
           14.     In addition to the above reason what may<\/p>\n
further be found, as I have noted also, conducting a<\/p>\n
search and recovering or seizing any property, or a<\/p>\n
document, etc. and preparing documents in that behalf<\/p>\n
are all parts of investigation, or better put, steps in<\/p>\n
investigation of a criminal offence. They are very much<\/p>\n
part   and       parcel       of     investigation            which       is     the<\/p>\n
statutorily earmarked jurisdiction of police. Section<\/p>\n
156(2)Cr.P.C.         clearly         prohibits          questioning            such<\/p>\n
proceedings of a police officer                     on ground indicated<\/p>\n
therein.     Thus,         there     is     a   statutory       bar      also    in<\/p>\n
maintaining          any     petition           seeking       any        part     of<\/p>\n
investigation         like     the        search   and       seizure,      to    be<\/p>\n
quashed as the same always has to be interpreted as<\/p>\n
interfering with the statutory powers of the police to<\/p>\n
investigate      a    cognizable           offence.     This    position         has<\/p>\n
been   clarified       by     innumerable          decisions        of    various<\/p>\n
Courts.      The       same          decision          in      Khwaja          Nazir<\/p>\n
Ahmad(Supra)elucidates the law as follows:-<\/p>\n
        In their Lordships\u201f opinion however, the more
\nserious aspect of the case is to be found in the
\nresultant interference by the Court with the duties of
\nthe police. Just as it is essential that every one
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
            accused of a crime should have free access to a Court
\n            of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found
\n            not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so
\n            it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary
\n            should not interfere with the police in matters which
\n            are within their province and into which the law
\n            imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has
\n            been shown there is a statutory right on the part of
\n            the police to investigate the circumstances of an
\n            alleged   cognizable   crime   without   requiring  any
\n            authority from the judicial authorities, and it would,
\n            as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if
\n            it should be held possible to interfere with those
\n            statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent
\n            jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the
\n            judiciary   and  the   police   are  complementary  not
\n            overlapping and the combination of individual liberty
\n            with a due observance of law and order is only to be
\n            obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function,
\n            always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to
\n            intervene in an appropriate case when moved under
\n            S.491, Criminal P.C., to give directions in the nature
\n            of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present,
\n            however, the Court\u201fs functions begin when a charge is
\n            preferred before it and not until then.<\/p>\n
                         15.    In the above views of the matter, it could<\/p>\n
            not   be     said    that   the   search    of   the   house   of   the<\/p>\n
            petitioners         were    without        jurisdiction    and      was<\/p>\n
            completely arbitrarily or illegal which required the<\/p>\n
            issuance of the writs as was prayed for.<\/p>\n
                         16.    I find no merit in the writ petition and<\/p>\n
            Cr.Revision petition and the two petitions are hereby<\/p>\n
            dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)\n\n\nPatna High Court,\nDated, the 26th    day\nof September, 2011,\nBrajesh Kumar\/AFR\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 Author: Dharnidhar Jha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Petition No.244 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. Balmiki Singh, Son of […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 - 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\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-01T22:42:29+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T22:42:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2854,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T22:42:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 - 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\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-01T22:42:29+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T22:42:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011"},"wordCount":2854,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011","name":"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T22:42:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-indra-devi-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-thru-vigilance-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Indra Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 26 September, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/96890","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=96890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}