Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Arvinderjeet Kaur Puri – Respondent
CRM-M No. 12969 of 2022
Decided On : 02-12-2023
For the Parties : Mr. Rajeev Anand, Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
The court ruled that without a clear nexus between bank accounts and alleged criminal activity, the freezing of accounts is unwarranted.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of order - Petition for quashing order allowing de-freezing of bank accounts - CBI contended existence of reasonable suspicion of proceeds from criminal activities in bank accounts of respondent - Respondent asserted no substantial material indicating involvement - Court noted absence of a nexus between bank account and alleged offence - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 3, 9, 11)
(B) Seizure of property - Investigating agency's power under Section 102 - Requirement of nexus between bank account and alleged offence for seizure - Court clarified that no intervening circumstances warranted freezing of respondent's bank accounts. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order permitting the release of respondent's bank accounts, alleging that proceeds from criminal activities were deposited therein. The respondent countered that her account was not included in the charge sheet and that she faced financial difficulties due to the account's attachment.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order allowing the release of the bank accounts, emphasizing the lack of evidence linking the accounts to criminal activities.
Issues: The main issues included whether there was sufficient evidence to freeze the respondent's bank accounts and the implications of the release of the prime accused's accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without a clear nexus between the bank accounts and the alleged offence, the freezing of accounts was not warranted, and the CBI's arguments lacked sufficient legal basis.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Judgment
Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) in FIR No.RC2172021A0004 of CBI, ACII, New Delhi whereby the learned Special Judge (CBI), Haryana at Panchkula has allowed the application dated 25.11.2021 moved by the respondent for de-freezing of her bank accounts.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-CBI submits that the Court below had erroneously allowed the application filed by the respondent for release of her bank account.
3. It has been vehemently submitted that a reasonable suspicion exists that the proceeds from the ill-gotten wealth/criminal activities acquired by the prime accused Harjeet Singh Puri, spouse of the respondent were deposited in various bank accounts held by close relatives, including the respondent. Consequently, there may exist a potential nexus between this money trail and the bank account of the respondent which would have been possibly used for the purpose of purchasing properties, paying insurance premium, among other transactions. Additionally, it has also been asserted that substantial evidence had been collected by the CBI against the respondent which led to her being named as an accused through the supplementary charge sheet. It has been furthermore contended that though the bank accounts of the respondent were not explicitly included in the charge sheet, however, the CBI had already gathered information regarding disproportionate assets of the accused including the respondent for which an FIR had also been lodged against the respondent, thus warranting her bank accounts to be maintained as they existed on 13.07.2021. It has still further been thus prayed that since the respondent is facing three other FIRs including the instant FIR, the maintaining her bank accounts as existed on 13.07.2021 is necessitated on account of pending investigations in those cases. A prayer has been made that an unconditional release of the bank account of the respondent be not permitted and instead she be ordered to maintain the account balance in her bank account as it stood on 13.07.2021.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent accused has asserted that there exists no substantial material on record indicating her involvement in the case in hand; which is evident from the omission of her bank account from the charge sheet which has been presented against her. While drawing the attention of this Court to order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, it has been further submitted that the bank account of the prime accused Harjeet Singh Puri has been released. It was a matter of record that the CBI had not challenged the aforesaid order releasing Harjeet Singh Puri’s bank account and thus the petitioner was now precluded from challenging the releasing of the accounts of the respondent. Additionally, it has been argued that since another FIR pertaining to disproportionate assets is neither before the Special Judge, CBI nor before this Court at this juncture, it would be legally impermissible to seek the freezing of the bank accounts of the respondent on this basis and a separate procedure would have to be pursued by the CBI in the relevant case. It has been still further highlighted that the respondent has a separate source of income as she is taking tuitions and has been severely impacted due to attachment of her salary account, making it extremely difficult to sustain herself.
5. It has also been urged that the Court below had already imposed a condition upon the respondent requiring the execution of a personal bond before the investigating officer to deposit an equivalent amount that was present in her bank account on 13.07.2021.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
7. It is trite to observe that the investigating agency does have the power under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. to seize the bank
