AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the N.I.A.
This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 01.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed in Special Case No.06 of 2024/ R.C. No.11 of 2024/N.I.A./D.L.I. by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A. (Bihar), Patna, whereby and whereunder the prayer for release of the cash amounting to Rs.11,19,500/- (Eleven Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred) which was seized from the possession of the appellant and one Apple iPhone (black Colour) of the father of the appellant, has been rejected by the learned N.I.A. Court.
In course of hearing of the matter on 18.08.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
“Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the N.I.A.
2.In course of hearing of the matter, this Court thinks it just and proper to call upon the N.I.A. to file an affidavit clearly stating as to whether the money seized from the Almirah of the appellant has already been deposited with the Treasury, if yes, then why that money cannot be released after obtaining adequate security from the appellant.
3.As regards the iPhone seized in course of raid also the N.I.A. shall state the necessity to keep the iPhone under seizure.
4.At the same time, learned counsel for the appellant shall submit a short affidavit stating that the appellant is ready to place either a bank account or furnish a fixed deposit for the value involved in this case.
5.List this matter on 24.08.2026 under the same heading, maintaining its position.
6.Since this Court is of the view that the issues raised in course of hearing of the appeal should have been addressed by the N.I.A. who claims itself a professional agency but has not been answered, still the Court is adjourning the matter in order to come to an appropriate conclusion, the time granted to the N.I.A. must be availed to furnish the affidavit. No further time shall be allowed.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the N.I.A. As regards the mobile phone, statements have been made in paragraphs ‘20’, ‘21’ & ‘23’ of the supplementary counter affidavit. We are convinced that the mobile phone is still being examined and since it is stated that they are currently working on developing the required paths and the N.I.A. will be informed about it, we decline to go into the issue of the release of the mobile phone at this stage.
The only issue which survives is with regard to the release of the cash. In paragraph ‘23’ of its affidavit, the N.I.A. has made the following statement:-
“23.That the cash Rs, 11,19,500, seized from the house of accused Devmani Rai has been deposited into the NIA account maintained at SBI, Raj Bhawan Branch, pursuant to the permission granted by the Special NIA Court, Patna and the receipt evidencing such deposit has been submitted before the Special NIA Court as an Exhibit.”
It is evident on a bare reading of paragraph ‘23’ of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the N.I.A. that the cash has already been deposited in the N.I.A. account maintained at S.B.I. and the receipt showing such deposit has been submitted in the learned Trial Court as an exhibit. The affidavit of the N.I.A. does not show any reason as required vide paragraph ‘2’ of the order dated 18.08.2026 passed by this Court. The N.I.A. is unable to give any reason as to why the money cannot be released after obtaining adequate security from the appellant.
On the other hand, the supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant wherein the appellant has shown his willingness to keep a sum equal to Rs.11,19,500/-deposited in his Kurhani Branch of Allahabad Bank A/C No.21514520124 as Bank Guarantee after release of the said amount of Rs.11,19,500/-.
Learned Special P.P. for the N.I.A. has pointed out that in paragraph ‘2’ of its affidavit, the appellant has made a qualified statement that the money would be deposited in the said account if the cash as well as the Apple iPhone of his father is released. However, Mr. Sarabdeo Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant submits that he has instruction to say that the cash deposit of Rs.11,19,500/- shall remain in the account of the appellant as Bank Guarantee if the cash amount of Rs.11,19,500/- is released. Even if the Apple iPhone is not released at this stage, the appellant would abide by his undertaking.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the N.I.A. made in paragraph ‘23’ of its supplementary counter affidavit that the money has been deposited in the account of the N.I.A. and receipt showing the deposit has been submitted as an Exhibit in the N.I.A. Court, no reason having been shown to this Court as to why the said money be not released in favour of the appellant on furnishing Bank Guarantee to the extent of the amount so released in his favour, we direct the respondent-N.I.A. to release the amount of Rs.11,19,500/- to the appellant during pendency of the trial subject to the condition that the appellant shall furnish a Bank Guarantee for an equal amount of Rs.11,19,500/- in favour of the N.I.A. issued by a nationalized bank in India. The said Bank Guarantee shall be kept on extending from time to time during the trial by the appellant or his successor and further the appellant shall furnish an undertaking in the learned Trial Court that he would abide by such orders which will be passed by the learned Trial Court in this regard at any stage of the proceeding.
Let the money be released in favour of the appellant on furnishing the Bank Guarantee within a period of four weeks from today.
This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.