Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to the issue of defreezing the bank account are as follows:

1. 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 (!) (!) .

2. 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 (!) (!) .

3. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

5. 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 (!) (!) .

6. 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 (!) (!) .

7. 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.