Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Anjali Anand, W/o. Late Balindra Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 57 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 102(3) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Hindu Succession Act - Section 25 - Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Criminal Conspiracy - Power of Police officer to seize certain property - Bank has freezed account - Quash of Order - Whether bank account can be permitted to be defreezed or not - On basis of Fardbeyan of petitioner recorded against unknown miscreants stating inter-alia that husband of informant had gone to Ranka on Hero Honda Motorcycle, but he did not return in evening - Petitioner/informant tried to contact him on his Mobile numbers, which were switched off - Petitioner suspected some mishappening and started searching her husband with the help of neighbours, but did not find any clue till 19.08.2014 - Held, This Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India, which is Court of equity, thinks it proper to remand matter to trial court and directing petitioner to demonstrate before trial court that how she is maintaining children and if trial court comes to a conclusion that children are being taken care of by petitioner, trial court, after examining this aspect of matter, will issue direction to extent that petitioner will not withdraw amount in question at a time and will pass order considering reasonable amount for studies of children and their maintenance - Hence, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa in Sessions Trial is quashed and remitted back to enquire and pass order in terms of above - Criminal writ petition disposed of.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to the issue of defreezing the bank account are as follows:
The petitioner seeks to unfreeze her bank account, which was frozen on the oral instructions of the investigating officer. The petitioner claims she is taking care of her children and their education, supported by school certificates (!) (!) .
The order of the trial court, which rejected the petition to unfreeze the account, was based on the consideration that the petitioner is an accused in the murder of her husband and that the account is linked to the proceeds of the alleged crime. The court also noted that the petitioner is in custody and that her criminal trial is pending (!) (!) .
The legal framework under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) allows police officers to seize property suspected of being connected to an offence, but it is mandatory that such action follows specific procedures, including reporting to a magistrate and not merely issuing oral instructions to freeze accounts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The document emphasizes that any instructions to stop operation of a bank account, given orally or in writing, are equivalent to attachment under law, which requires strict procedural compliance. In this case, such procedures were not properly followed, rendering the freezing order illegal (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner is disqualified from inheriting or operating the account if she is found to be involved in the offence of murder or abetting the same, as per relevant legal provisions. Since her criminal trial is ongoing, and she is an accused, she is not entitled to the unfreezing of the account at this stage (!) (!) .
Despite the legal restrictions, the Court recognizes the importance of the welfare of the children and their education. It is considered equitable to remand the matter to the trial court, with a direction that the petitioner demonstrate her capacity to maintain her children. If the court finds she is able to do so, it may pass appropriate orders to unfreeze the account, with conditions on withdrawal limits for the children’s maintenance and education (!) (!) .
The final decision is to quash the previous order and remand the matter to the trial court for further inquiry, ensuring procedural compliance and considering the welfare of the children before any unfreezing order is issued (!) .
In summary, the legal position indicates that the account cannot be unfreezed at this stage due to procedural lapses in attachment procedures and the petitioner’s status as an accused in a pending criminal trial involving serious charges. However, the court is willing to consider the welfare of the children and may permit unfreezing if the petitioner can demonstrate her ability to maintain and support her children, subject to the trial court’s assessment.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for direction to the respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith start operation of the account of the petitioner bearing Account No.4051000100026513, IFSC No. PUNB0405100, Punjab National Bank, Garhwa Branch, Garhwa. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No.29/2015, which is still pending before that court.
3. The F.I.R. being Garhwa P.S. Case No.512 of 2014 dated 21.08.2014 was lodged under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the petitioner recorded on 21.08.2014 at 11:45 a.m. at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa against unknown miscreants stating inter-alia that on 18.08.2014 at about 08:00 a.m., the husband of the informant-Balindra Kumar Singh had gone to Ranka on Hero Honda Motorcycle, bearing Registration No.JH-14A-2022, but he did not return in evening. The petitioner/informant tried to contact him on his Mobile numbers, which were switched off. The petitioner suspected some mishappening and started searching her husband with the help of neighbours, but did not find any clue till 19.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written information at the police station on 19.08.2014. On 21.08.2014, the petitioner came to know that the dead body of her husband kept in a gunny bag was dropped in the well at a lonely place, situated in Village Tildag. The dead body was identified by the villagers including the informant/petitioner and she had suspected that unknown persons have committed murder of her husband.
4. The petitioner earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 363 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2020 directing the petitioner to approach the court below and make appropriate prayer for releasing/unfreezing the bank account. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the court below by filing a petition with a prayer to release/unfreeze the bank account. The prosecution has filed rejoinder to that petition stating therein that minor children of the petitioner are surviving and they are living with their grandmother and till the minor children attained the age of majority, the amount in question may not be released. In the said account, there is amount of approximately Rs.10 Lakhs. The trial court decided the petition of the petitioner and rejected the prayer vide order dated 23.12.2020.
5. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the oral direction of the I.O., the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. He further submits that the children are residing with this petitioner and the petitioner is taking care of her children, particularly in their studies. He refers to Annexure-7 Series of the petition, which are certificates of school. He vehemently relied upon Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C. and submits that in light of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., there is no attachment. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 0 CrLJ 148.
6. Paragraphs 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:
11. Mr. Sawant, Senior Counsel for
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of freezing bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of this provision in the context of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for freezing bank accounts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, specifically Section 25, is directory in nature....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition may not be maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of seeking app....
The freezing of the bank account under section 102 Cr.P.C. must be in compliance with the statutory requirements, and the intimation to the court must be made forthwith as required by the law.
The court established that a bank account can be frozen under suspicion of criminal activity, and failure to report the freeze to the Magistrate does not invalidate the action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
