ARUN KUMAR DUBEY vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:18514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 649 of 2021

……
Arun Kumar Dubey, aged about 51 years, Son of Udai Dubey,
Resident of Village-Banpurwa, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Garhwa,
Jharkhand … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Income Tax Department, through Assistant Director of
Income Tax, Ranchi, near Club Complex, M.G. Road, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.-Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand

… Opp. Parties
……
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C.
Ms. Saudamini Gupta, Jr. S.C.
Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, A.C. to Sr. S.C.
……
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
……
ORDER
C.A.V. on 12.06.2026 Pronounced on 24.06.2026


1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order
dated 14.07.2020 passed by Learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in G.R.
Case No. 72 of 2020 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297
of 2019, whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 29.98
Lakhs seized from the petitioner has been declined to be
released in his favour, against which, the petitioner also
preferred a Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2020 before the
Page | 1
Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18514
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj,
which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2021.
2. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
accused Kedar Prajapati, Murari Yadav and Sukuldeo
Prajapati were apprehended with cash of Rs. 29.98 Lakhs near
Chainpur Police Station, in course of checking, on account of
Assembly Elections. The money was seized and they were
apprehended. Accordingly, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297 of
2019 was registered, for the offence under Sections 414,
505(1)(b), 171-E, 171-F, 171-H, 188, 120B of the IPC against
Kedar Prajapati, Murari Yadav, Sukuldev Prajapati and
unknown B.J.P. Candidates. It is further alleged that on
22.11.2019, P.D.I.T. issued a requisition warrant requisitioning
seized cash from the police. Thereafter, petitioner namely
Arun Kumar Dubey filed an application for release of the
seized cash on 03.12.2019, which was rejected by the learned
S.D.J.M. vide order dated 14.07.2020. Thereafter, a criminal
revision was filed before the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge
bearing Cr. Rev. No. 18 of 2020, which was also dismissed
Page | 2
Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18514
vide order dated 19.02.2021. The petitioner again filed an
application for release of the seized cash before learned
S.D.J.M., Palamau, which was rejected vide order dated
21.09.2021. The petitioner has challenged the said order before
this Hon’ble Court by filing Cr. Rev. No. 649 of 2021. It is
further submitted that during pendency of this criminal
revision, the accused persons have been acquitted after facing
trial, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2019
vide judgment dated 27.08.2024. It is further submitted that
the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration that
petitioner is a contractor and withholding of his huge amount
will hamper his business and passed the order in mechanical
manner. Therefore, this revision petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. -2 (Income Tax Dept.)
have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner
for release of the amount seized in this case in view of the
requisition issued by the Income Tax Department-opposite
party No. 2. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.
2-Income Tax Department has filed counter-affidavit on
Page | 3
Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18514
11.06.2025 stating inter alia that there are outstanding demand
of Rs. 88,82,636/- recoverable from the petitioner and that the
requisitioned cash was never handed over to the Income Tax
Department by the police and the same cannot be released to
the petitioner, rather, be handed over to the Income Tax
Department. It is submitted that as per provision of Section
132-B, the requisitioned assets are to be used first to discharge
the existing liability under the Income Tax Act and the
remaining property, if any, can only be released. In the
instant case, the existing liability exceeds than the
requisitioned assets of the petitioner, therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned order, calling for any interference
and this revision is fit to be dismissed.
5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
6. It appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is
that in spite of requisition made by the Income Tax
Department about the seized currency notes, it is still lying at
the police station. Therefore, the seized assets are lying as
unproductive assets without any interest to be paid. As per
the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, if the
seized currency notes are returned to the Income Tax
Page | 4
Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18514
Department, then, also after satisfying the outstanding
demand, if any, balance amount remains to be paid, will be
returned with interest to the petitioner. Therefore, in spite of
acquittal of the accused persons from the charges, the
petitioner is deprived of the benefit of his money.
7. In view of aforesaid discussions and considering the
relevant provisions of Income Tax Act, I do not find any
illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference
in this revision, which is hereby upheld. However, petitioner
shall be, at liberty, to agitate his grievance about the
requisition of the seized money to the Income Tax
Department, as prayed for, before the concerned trial Court.
8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of.
9. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court
for information and needful.


(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)


Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 24/06/2026
Basant /
NAFR
Uploaded On: 25/06/2026
Page | 5
Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021