Election-time cash seizure cannot justify continued withholding absent electoral-offence evidence and upon verification of lawful ownership.

During the 2015 Bihar Legislative Assembly elections, a Flying Squad Magistrate intercepted a Scorpio vehicle at Vaishali on 22 September 2015. A sum of ₹5,04,000 was recovered from a school bag kept in the vehicle, in which the petitioner and two others were travelling. The petitioner allegedly could not satisfactorily explain the source and purpose of the cash. The amount was deposited in the District Treasury, and an FIR was registered under Sections 414, 171-B and 171-C of the IPC and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The petitioner claimed that the money belonged to him and had been withdrawn from his Canara Bank account in Delhi for attending his nephew’s marriage. He relied on his bank statement, marriage invitation card and income-tax return.

His application for release of the money was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the grounds that his address had not been verified and that certain conditions connected with his provisional bail and intimation to the Income Tax Department remained incomplete.

The Sessions Judge dismissed his revision, observing that the amount had been recovered from his possession, no sufficient explanation had been furnished, and his address remained unverified.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Whether the orders refusing release of ₹5,04,000 to the petitioner were legally sustainable when the lower courts relied principally on non-verification of his address and bail-related conditions?

2. Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie connection between the petitioner or the seized money and offences under Sections 414, 171-B and 171-C of the IPC and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his claim for release after verification of his identity and the alleged withdrawal of the money from his bank account?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to examine whether the impugned orders resulted in legal or procedural injustice.

It considered Section 414 IPC, which concerns assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property; Sections 171-B and 171-C IPC, relating respectively to bribery and undue influence at elections; and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, concerning corrupt electoral practices.

The Court applied the principle that mere possession of cash during an election period, without material connecting the person or the money to bribery, undue influence, stolen property or another electoral offence, is insufficient by itself to establish the alleged offences or justify indefinite withholding of the property.

It further held that a claim for release of seized property must be determined on the basis of relevant verification of the claimant’s identity, ownership and source of the money, rather than on unrelated or incomplete conditions.

The Court found that the investigation had produced no evidence linking the petitioner to any political party, bribery of voters or officials, undue influence, or concealment of stolen property.

There was also no complaint or FIR alleging that the seized ₹5,04,000 had been stolen from another person; consequently, the ingredients of Sections 414, 171-B and 171-C IPC were not prima facie established merely because the petitioner was carrying cash during the election period.

The Court further noted that the police had not verified either the petitioner’s identity or his asserted withdrawal of ₹5,50,000 and ₹4,00,000 from his Canara Bank account, despite the bank statement and other documents placed on record.

The lower courts therefore erred in refusing release solely because the petitioner’s address had not been verified and because conditions relating to provisional bail or Income Tax Department intimation had not been completed.

However, instead of directing immediate release, the High Court ordered a proper verification-based determination by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

It directed the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with documents proving his entitlement to the money, along with his Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and other relevant identity documents.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to verify the petitioner’s identity and the alleged bank withdrawal and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

If the identity and withdrawal were corroborated, the amount was to be released in the petitioner’s favour; if contrary facts emerged, appropriate orders were to be passed in accordance with law.