Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinod Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I.,Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law,C.S.C.,Sudhir Kumar,Vijay Kumar Dubey

The legal provision in question is Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which pertains to the procedure for handling property that has been seized by authorities. It grants the Magistrate the authority to make orders regarding the disposal or custody of such property if it is not produced before a court during inquiry or trial. The section also provides that if the person entitled to the property is known, the Magistrate may order its delivery under certain conditions, and if the person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and issue a proclamation to establish claims.

In the context of the case, the court emphasized that when property, including a bank account, is seized, the affected party has an effective remedy under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., which allows for the application for interim custody of the seized property. The section provides a mechanism for the person entitled to the property to seek its return or appropriate custody during the investigation or trial process.

The court clarified that the act of freezing a bank account under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is a temporary investigative measure and does not amount to a deprivation of property rights. It is meant to preserve evidence and prevent the dissemination or depletion of suspected property during investigation. Since Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. provide a statutory remedy for the affected person to seek custody or release of the property, the petitioner could have availed of these remedies instead of filing a writ petition.

Therefore, if a person’s bank account or property is seized or frozen, their appropriate course of action is to approach the Magistrate under Sections 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. to seek relief. The availability of these remedies renders the writ petition not maintainable when such statutory remedies are accessible and adequate. The court ultimately disposed of the petition, noting that it lacked merit and leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory remedies available under the law.