VIKAS RAJVANSHI V. UNION OF INDIA

CRLMP/6293/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Vikas Rajvanshi, the petitioner, who challenged the rejection of his application for the release of seized cash and jewelry by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had conducted raids on the premises of the petitioner's sister and subsequently on the petitioner's own premises, leading to the seizure of cash and jewelry under suspicions of illegal asset accumulation. The trial court initially rejected the petitioner's application for the release of the seized items, citing a previous rejection and the provisions of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court found that the investigation was complete and the items were not needed further, thus allowing the release upon the petitioner furnishing a bond and surety.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687799 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SACHIN ACHARYA; RAHUL RAJPUROHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS BALIA; SHEETAL KUMBHAT
• Keywords: CBI raid; Seizure of cash; Illegal accumulation of assets; Application for release of cash; Supurdaginama; Bond and solvent surety
• Section: 362; 482; 457

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6293/2022 Vikas Rajvanshi S/o Late Sh. Surjit Singh Rajvanshi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o H-15 Chitranjan Marg C Sheme Jaipur Raj. 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, through Special P.P. CBI ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 04/11/2022 1. By way of the present petition, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2022, passed by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as \"the trial Court\"), whereby petitioner's application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Code\") has been rejected. 2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that under the apprehension/suspicion of some illegal accumulation of assets, the CBI conducted raid on the premises of sister of the present petitioner (Alka Rajvanshi). During the course of investigation, petitioner's premises and bank accounts etc were also searched and cash amounting to total of Rs.16,44,500/- was recovered and (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6293/2022] seized out of which Rs.4,31,250/- belongs to the present petitioner. The said seizure of cash was made on 09.04.2021. 3. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 08.04.2021 for release of the cash with the following prayer: \"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this application may kindly be taken on record and the application filed by the Applicant may kindly be allowed accordingly and an order may kindly be passed to release cash for a sum of Rs.4,31,250.00 out of total seized amount of Rs.16,44,5000.00 (cash seized Rs.9,50,000.00 vide dated 09.04.2021 Vide Annexure-1 and Rs.6,94,500.00 seized from Locker no.66 vide dated 09.06.2021 Annexure-2) which belongs to Applicant Vikas Rajvanshi as per above table and locker no.66 which is in the name of Applicant and his wife. Further, Applicant is ready to submit the Undertaking/Indemnity Bond for the same amount. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly pass in favour of Applicant.\" 4. This application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.07.2021. 5. Thereafter, certain gold ornaments and articles were seized on 09.06.2021 from locker No.66 belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner again moved another application under section 457 of the Code for the same relief. The subsequent application came to be considered by the trial Court on 29.07.2022 and the same was rejected essentially on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application had been rejected and the same was barred by the provisions contained in section 362 of the Code. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6293/2022] 6. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, submitted that the investigation is over and the cash and jewellery of the petitioner and his wife are lying seized with the respondent CBI for more than 1 and 1/2 years. 7. While maintaining that the cash amount so also the jewellery is duly explained and depicted in the return of Income Tax filed both by the petitioner and his wife, learned Sr. counsel argued that the seizure itself is illegal and the cash and jewellery etc. seized on 09.04.2021 and 09.06.2021 respectively are liable to be released forthwith. 8. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit, appearing for respondent CBI while accepting that the investigation is over and the seized article and cash are not required further for the purpose of investigation, on instructions fairly submitted that the CBI has no objection if the seized articles and cash are released to the petitioner albeit on furnishing of supurdaginama/bond and solvent surety to the extent of valuation of jewellery and amount of cash. 9. The present petition is, therefore allowed; the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.07.2022 is set aside and petitioner's application under section 457 of the Code is hereby allowed. 10. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond and one surety (other than petitioner's wife and son) in the trial Court to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, which will take care of the cash amount so also the entire jewellery seized from the locker No.66 in case on conclusion of trial they are held liable for confiscation etc. 11. On satisfactory furnishing of personal bond and surety bond, the learned trial Court shall issue requisite precept/order to the (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6293/2022] respondent CBI for releasing the cash and jewellery to the petitioner. 12. The stay application also stands disposed of. (DINESH MEHTA),J 175-Ramesh/- "