Back
Bombay HC Draws the Line: No Blanket Freezes on Bank Accounts Without Crime Link
In a significant ruling for criminal investigations, the has clarified that police cannot freeze bank accounts under unless there's a direct nexus between the assets and the alleged offence. Justice N.J. Jamadar, in twin applications ( and ), upheld the de-freezing of accounts but swapped a hefty bank guarantee for a lighter indemnity bond, balancing probe needs with accused rights.
Stock Broker's Trust Turns Sour: The Roots of the Row
Parag Shah, director of , a stocks brokerage firm, alleges he lent shares worth crores to Geeta Kampani and her late husband Pradeep (Accused Nos. 1 & 2) during their 2011-2013 financial crunch. The deal? Six-month loans at 10% interest p.a., plus all corporate benefits returned. Shares moved to the KAMPanis' Demat accounts amid a trusted broker-client bond.
Shah claims initial repayments built faith, but as shares skyrocketed, the duo reneged, sold them off, and pocketed proceeds. This led to FIR No. 39/2018 by , invoking for conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and cheating. In 2018, the IO froze Kampanis' HDFC Bank accounts and mutual fund units totaling ~Rs. 6.55 crores.
A rollercoaster followed: Magistrate de-froze in 2021 (indemnity bond condition), Sessions Court remanded, then 2023 order de-froze again—but with Rs. 6.55 crore bank guarantee . Shah challenged the unfreezing; Geeta the guarantee condition. As LiveLaw notes, this saga underscores how civil tiffs can morph into criminal probes.
Accused Strikes at the Core, Complainant Fights to Hold
Geeta Kampani's counsel (Sr. Adv. Sharan Jagtiani) hammered the no-nexus point: Frozen assets—bank balances and old mutual funds—had "no remotest link" to lent shares. Section 102 demands objective suspicion of stolen property or crime-circumstance ties, not mere accused ownership. Post-chargesheet, with trial distant, freezes violate presumption of innocence. They painted Shah's FIR as criminalizing a civil dispute , noting his failed civil suit interim relief bid.
Shah's team (Sr. Adv. Sanjeev Kadam) and APP R.S. Tendulkar countered: Chargesheet pins Rs. 6.55 crore wrongful loss; Demat transfers prove entrustment breach. IO's opinion on proceeds of crime merits deference ( reliance). De-freezing risks accused dissipating funds, dooming recovery even if convicted.
Peeling Back Section 102: Not a Recovery Tool, But an Investigation Aid
Justice Jamadar dissected , Part D of Chapter VII's "Processes to Compel Production." Power targets "property alleged/suspected stolen" or found in crime-suspecting circumstances —emphasis on property's character , not accused links ( State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy , 1999: bank accounts qualify if directly linked ).
Precedents fortified: bars seizing unconnected property; (3-Judge Bench) excludes immovables, stresses investigator-not-adjudicator role—"suspicion" weaker than belief, aids evidence collection, not dues recovery. mandates direct link for validity.
No seized shares here; mutual funds pre-dated deals, sale-trail unproven. Demat records presume Kampani ownership ( ). Freezes can't pre-judge guilt or mimic civil attachment—especially post-withdrawn suit motion. Teesta distinguished: there, accounts held suspect funds.
Court's Razor-Sharp Observations
"There ought to be a direct link between the property which is seized and the offence which is alleged to have been committed."
"Section 102 is neither intended to confer, nor a repository of, the power to seize the property for the purpose of its delivery to the person/victim whom the IO consider to be the rightful owner."
"Absent the nexus and direct link between the seized property and the commission of the alleged offences, the seizure would partake the character of detaining the property of the accused awaiting adjudication of the guilt."
"A direction to a party to furnish bank guarantee of an equivalent amount virtually amounts to denial of the prayer to de-freez the accounts."
Unfrozen Assets, Bonded Back: Ruling and Ripples
Criminal Application No.191/2024 (Shah) dismissed; No.790/2024 (Geeta) allowed partly. Impugned order modified: De-freeze savings accounts & mutual funds , subject to Geeta furnishing Rs. 6.55 crore indemnity bond to refund principal + interest post-trial (EOW CR 39/2018). Interim relief extended 6 weeks.
This curbs overreach, protecting assets sans proof while allowing civil remedies. Future IOs must trace crime proceeds precisely ; Magistrates can't impose guarantee-equivalents defeating de-freezes. A safeguard for presumption of innocence in economic crimes.
