Back
2026 Supreme(UK) 225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Gurjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024
Decided On : 03-01-2026
For the Appellant : Harshit Sanwal
For the Respondent: Bhaskar Ch. Joshi
Freezing bank account is seizure under CrPC Section 102 requiring mandatory Magistrate reporting; non-compliance invalidates it, especially prolonged against non-accused, warranting conditional unfreezing.
Headnote:(A) CrPC - Section 102(3) - Freezing of bank account amounts to seizure of property - Mandatory duty to report seizure forthwith to Magistrate for judicial oversight - Non-compliance vitiates freezing and renders continued restraint unsustainable - Prolonged freezing disproportionate, particularly against non-accused after substantial investigation completion. (Paras 13, 23-26, 28)
(B) CrPC - Sections 397, 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Interference justified where lower court overlooks statutory non-compliance, conflates suspicion with adjudication, and fails to apply proportionality - Unfreezing allowed subject to security and conditions safeguarding prosecution interests. (Paras 31-34)
Facts of the case:
Criminal revision challenging rejection of application to unfreeze bank account frozen during investigation into alleged fraud via false land classification for excessive compensation. Account holder son of landowner, not named accused or charge-sheeted despite multiple charge-sheets against others. Freezing since 2018 without reporting to Magistrate.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside. Bank account to be unfrozen forthwith subject to furnishing adequate security equivalent to alleged tainted amount and prohibition on alienation or withdrawal without court permission.
Issues: Validity of bank account freezing absent mandatory reporting under Section 102(3) CrPC; proportionality of indefinite freezing against non-accused; balancing prosecution need to secure proceeds of crime with individual property rights.
Ratio Decidendi: Seizure power under Section 102 CrPC subject to immediate judicial scrutiny; non-reporting undermines legislative safeguard against arbitrary deprivation; mere pendency of trial insufficient for prolonged restraint without adjudication; conditional release achieves balance.
Result: Criminal revision allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir for forgery in land classification causing excess compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. non-accused's bank account frozen without section 102(3) report. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. non-compliance with 102(3) crpc vitiates freezing; disproportionate restraint. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. freezing secures crime proceeds pending trial. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. bank freezing is seizure requiring immediate magistrate report. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. prolonged freezing without adjudication violates proportionality. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. balance interests via conditional unfreezing with security. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
1. The present criminal revision arises out of FIR No. 32 of 2017 registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 167, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against certain landowners and public officials, including revenue authorities and officers connected with land acquisition, alleging that agricultural land was falsely shown as non-agricultural by procuring back-dated orders under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, resulting in payment of excessive compensation.
3. The Revisionist, Gurjeet Singh, is the son of one of the landowners, namely Jarnail Singh. It is not disputed that the Revisionist is not named as an accused in the FIR and has not been charge-sheeted in the said case. Several charge-sheets have, however, been filed from time to time against other accused persons.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer issued a communication dated 12.07.2018 to the State Bank of India, Gadarpur Branch, requesting freezing of bank account No. 11233606345, maintained in the name of the Revisionist. The stated basis for such freezing was that the compensation amount allegedly disbursed to the landowner was deposited in the said account.
5. Pursuant to the said communication, the bank account of the Revisionist was frozen in the year 2018. The account has continued to remain frozen since then, thereby restraining the Revisionist from operating the account for several years.
6. The Revisionist asserts that the bank account has no nexus with the alleged offence and that the freezing was carried out without following the mandatory requirement under sub-section (3) of Section 102 CrPC, namely, reporting of seizure of property to the concerned Magistrate forthwith.
7. After completion of the investigation and filing of charge- sheets against other accused, the Revisionist moved an application under Sections 451, 457 and 102 CrPC before the court of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, seeking unfreezing of his bank account. The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 05 of 2024.
8. The Investigating Officer filed an objection/report to the said application, wherein it was not disputed that the freezing of the account had not been reported to the Magistrate. The objection proceeded on the premise that the amount deposited in the account represented proceeds of crime.
9. By order dated 22.04.2024, the learned Special Judge rejected the application for unfreezing, holding that since the compensation amount alleged to be illegally obtained was deposited in the account of the Revisionist, and as the trial was pending, it would not be in the interest of justice to defreeze the account.
10. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revisionist has preferred the present criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
11. Learned counsel for the Revisionist assailed the impugned order with considerable emphasis and submitted that the order suffers from illegality, material irregularity and improper exercise of jurisdiction. It was contended that the learned court below failed to app
