1. All these three petitions have been filed seeking for a direction directing the respondents to defreeze the bank accounts maintained by the petitioners with the respective 3rd respondent-Banks.

2. Since the issues involved in all these three petitions are one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

3. One Tmt.T.Subbulakshmi is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.13103 and 13105 of 2013 and her daughter T.Yamini is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13104 of 2013.

4. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, has registered cases against the petitioners in Crime Nos.154, 233 & 315 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC. The petitioner Subbulakshmi was arrested on 25.10.2012 at Bangalore and she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on 26.10.2012 and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, she was released on bail. The petitioner T.Yamini, who has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.315 of 2012, obtained anticipatory bail from this Court.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that only due to the personal and political vendetta, the above criminal cases have been foisted against them. The petitioner Subbulakshmi was examined during her police custody by the respondent-Police on 25.10.2012 & 26.10.2012. As per the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, she was subjected to three days police custody from 02.11.2012 to 05.11.2012 till 5.00 pm. But, even at the time of custody, no materials were recovered from her.

6. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner Subbulakshmi is maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the Indian Bank, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai vide., Savings Bank Account No.443503512 and she is also maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the Indian Overseas Bank, Valmiki Nagar Branch, Chennai, vide Savings Bank Account No.147201000002821. The petitioner T.Yamini is maintaining savings bank account with the Indian Bank, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai, vide Savings Bank Account No.443519920. The above said three bank accounts were frozen by the said Banks on the written request dated 27.09.2012 made by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, the petitioners have sent legal notices to the Banks on 27.10.2012 stating that freezing of the bank accounts is not in consonance with the law & practice and the legal formalities, which have to be obtained from the Judicial Magistrate, have not been followed. Further, there is no progress in the investigation since April-2012 and the motive for freezing of the bank accounts of the petitioners is only to put the petitioners in great hardship and mental agony. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions before this Court seeking a direction directing the respondents to defreeze their bank accounts.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 102 of Cr.P.C., which deals with the powers of the Police Officer to seize certain property, submitted that if the seizure of the property is only in accordance with the provision of Section 102 of Cr.P.C., the same can be sustainable, otherwise such a seizure is not legally sustainable.

8. In this regard, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1999(7) SCC 685 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D.Neogy) and submitted that as per the dictum laid down in the said judgment, the bank account will fall within the meaning of the property mentioned under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., and that therefore, unless the freezing of the bank account is in accordance with section 102 of Cr.P.C., the same cannot be legally sustainable. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Sub-Clause 3 to Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that every Police Officer acting under Sub-sec