Freezing of bank accounts in anticipation of conviction and fine is not justified when the investigation is incomplete and the trial has not concluded.

The respondents 1 & 2 during investigation of Crime No.5/2014, registered against petitioner for offences punishable under sections 379 & 420 r/w 120B IPC, sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for offences punishable under sections 21 & 23 r/w 4(1), 4(1)(A) of MMDR Act, 1957, by exercising powers under section 102 Cr.P.C., have frozen bank account of petitioner, the details of which are as follows:

1. Bank of Baroda – 05290200001744 – Cr.Rs.19,92,660.06

2. ING Vysya Bank, Chennai – 407011004918 – Cr.Rs.1,17,750.55.

3. ING Vysya Bank, Bellary – 111011007814 – Cr.Rs.1,18,261.69

4. Punjab National Bank – 0305008700095869 – (Dr.Rs.8,91,90,442.91)

2. Out of the aforestated accounts, account mentioned at Sl.No.4 is the overdraft facility extended to petitioner. Therefore, without verification, the Investigating Officer should not have instructed the Bank Manager to freeze over draft account facility extended by the Bank to petitioner.

3. As could be seen from the statement of accounts furnished by both the parties, the aggregate amount standing to the credit of petitioner in the afore-stated banks is a sum of Rs.22,28,672/-. In other words, the freezing of bank accounts as afore-stated on the request of Investigating Officer is continued till conclusion of trial, ultimately if petitioner is convicted, a sum of Rs.22,28,672/- would be available to court to appropriate the same towards fine that may be imposed on petitioner-accused.

4. The respondents 1 & 2 are yet to file the final report. At this stage, it is not clear as to the other accused involved in commission of afore-stated offences.

5. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner would offer bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as a condition precedent for defreezing the afore-stated bank accounts.

6. The learned counsel for Police (SIT) submits that this court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, magnitude of offences alleged against petitioner and bearing in mind the loss caused to state exchequer, may pass appropriate orders.

7. In the discussion made supra, I have given details of bank accounts and the amount standing in the account of petitioner and total amount frozen in afore-stated accounts. I have also narrated consequences that may ultimately follow even if petitioner is convicted. The investigation is not yet complete. It is also not certain when the investigation will be complete and trial will conclude. In the circumstances, there is no justification to freeze the bank account of petitioner, in anticipation of conviction and fine that may be imposed on petitioner on such conviction.

8. Therefore, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the court below for a period of one year. Upon the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee to the court below as afore-stated, the court below shall instruct the afore-stated banks to defreeze the bank accounts of petitioner stated supra. The parties are at liberty to invoke section 452 Cr.P.C., after final report is filed for modification of this order, in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of with these observations. Office to communicate this order to the learned XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge at Bangalore City.