Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9397 of 2021 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Son of Late Krishna Kumar Resident of Mohalla - Buddha Colony, Chakaram Opposite B- 37, Near St. Marry Church, P.S.- Buddha Colony, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Director General (Vigilance), Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance)-cum-SHO, Vigilance Police Station, Patna.

4.

The Police Inspector -cum-Investigating Officer Vigilance, Patna. 5.

The Sub-Divisional Manager, Patna Branch Life Insurance Corporation, Patna.

6.

The Senior Branch Manager, Patna Branch Life - IV Insurance Corporation, Patna.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 11-02-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking direction to the respondents particularly respondents No. 3 and 4 to de-freeze the L.I.C. policy of the petitioner, which was freezed in connection with the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 13(2)

Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2021(2) dt.11-02-2022 2/2 read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is an admitted fact that the said L.I.C. policy of the petitioner has been de-freezed.

Mr Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the statement made in the counter affidavit would disclose that the petitioner was put to undue hardship because of arbitrary action of the investigating officer of the case.

We have perused the counter affidavit, specially the statement made in paragraph 4 thereof, wherein it has been stated that L.I.C. Police No. 512557852 was freezed instead of police No. 512551852, mistakenly.

Since the main grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to seek compensation for the harassment caused to him because of the impugned action of the respondents before appropriate forum, if so advised.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) Pawan/- U