The main legal point established is that the freezing of bank accounts under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Cr.P.C. is justified if there are direct links with the commission of the offence. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and availing alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT :

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved on 12.09.2023.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-1 series) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna, whereby, he has directed to freeze the petitioner's Bank Account Nos. 30249601201, 30249571069, 30249621239, 30249621104, 30249620938, 30249620778, 30249620519, 10802007228, 30142572609, 30142569936 and 30142569302 at SBI Bazar Branch, Branch Code-01221, Daltonganj, Account Nos. 40546408283, 33686123450, 33686089042, 33686091302, 33686093241, 33686098885, 33686078518, 33686102032, 33686127783, 33686116817 and 33686118973 at Daltonganj Branch, Branch Code-00061, Daltonganj and Account Nos. 39921570624, 39921570330, 39921487919, 30534383980, 30630588911, 34048487155, 11444177541, 31598674230, 30534362937, 30534362507 and 30534363306 at Jail Hata Branch, Daltonganj, Branch Code-03144 and further respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been directed not to allow any operation or withdrawal from the above mentioned bank accounts. The further prayer is made for quashing the objection dated 11.03.2022 issued by the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch, District-Palamau (Jharkhand).

3. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the local permanent resident of Mohalla Belwatiker, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, Palamau, Jharkhand. The husband of the petitioner was in permanent service under the State Bank of India and he was working and posted as Branch Manager. He submitted that the petitioner's husband joined the service in the year 1971 and continued in the service till June, 1995, however, he left for his heavenly abode on 16.06.1995. After the death of her husband Late Anil Kumar Shrivastava, the petitioner received death cum retiral benefits including the family pension since June, 1995 up till now. The petitioner is having permanent source of income through House Rent from the house situated at Daltonganj town. He submitted that the petitioner visited State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch on 11.03.2022 for withdrawal of fixed deposit amount of Rs.15 Lacs from STDR Account No.40546408283, which was not allowed by the Bank on the letter dated 04.02.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna with bank objection dated 11.03.2022. He further submitted that in the said letter dated 04.02.2022, it has been recorded that Criminal Case No.05/2022 registered on 02.02.2022 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended 2018) against Shri Brij Behari Sharan, District Sub Registrar, Motihari (Bihar) is pending. He also submitted that the intention of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna was for freezing the bank account of Smt. Rashmi Kumari Shrivastava, the wife of Shri Brij Behari Sharan and the present petitioner is the mother of Smt. Rashmi Kumari Shrivastava and the bank accounts of the petitioner cannot be freezed in view of the above fact. He submitted that the petitioner is facing hardship and said letter under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and under Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is there and the Prevention of Corruption Act is complete Code in itself and as such that letter is without jurisdiction. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the order passed in the case of Ratan Babulal Lath v. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2021 [arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.2987/2021], dated 06.09.2021. He further relied upon the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Del 221. Relying on these judgments, he submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of these two judgments and, therefore, the impugned letter dated 04.02.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation B