IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C and the need for sufficient evidence to support the freezing of a bank account.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel who argued representing the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

2. Challenging the Prohibitory Order by which the Bank Account of the petitioner bearing No.00623888001 maintained with Mumbai Branch of HSBC India has been frozen and to direct the respondent to defreeze the said Bank Account, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Making his submission, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner Alibaba Cloud (India) Private Limited Company is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm registered under Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and is carrying out business of providing Cloud Computing Services and related services in India. He contends that the account of the petitioner was illegally and unjustifiably seized and the account was frozen by the respondent on 13/8/2021 invoking Ss. 91 and 102 Cr.P.C, while investigating the case in Crime No.1342 of 2021 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad. Learned counsel contends that the Prohibitory Order was passed without arraying the petitioner atleast as a suspect and no investigation is done regarding his activities and further, the petitioner has not been served with the copy of the Prohibitory Order till this date. Learned counsel further states that though the petitioner, on obtaining the relevant information, including the copy of FIR, has voluntarily provided all information and further, the request of the respondent to provide further information was also complied through mails and though all the documents that are called for were also given, the respondent could not find any involvement of the petitioner in the crime. Thus, the action of the respondent in illegally freezing the account, that too in violation of Sec. 102 Cr.P.C., is gross abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that though the account was frozen long time back i.e. way back in the month of December 2021, till now, a copy of Prohibitory Order is not served upon the petitioner and the respondent has not given any value or credence to the letter of law. It is also contended that the name of the petitioner is not figured in the FIR and though the petitioner approached the respondent to ascertain the facts and circumstances necessitating freezing of account, no reply was given as to why the Prohibitory Order was issued. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner is carrying out lawful activities and freezing of his account for such a long period has hampered his business activities. He states that the business operations of a law abiding enterprise cannot be stalled on the ground of investigation in a crime, that too where allegations are directed against the third parties. Therefore, questioning the attitude of the respondent, and also the procedural irregularity, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Contradicting the submissions thus made, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that by following due procedure established by law, Prohibitory Order was issued and the account was freezed.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that normally, no prior notice would be issued to the account holder regarding freezing of account. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gives explanation stating that in case prior notice is issued regarding the intention to freeze the account, the account holder would withdraw the entire amount and nothing would be left for investigation or for the victims to be compensated and therefore, in the normal course, no prior notice to freeze the account would be issued. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also contends that the respondent, during the course of investigation, has got every authority to take steps for seizure of the suspected property and freezing of accounts and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the respondent in freezing the account of the petitioner by passing the Prohibitory Order.

6. Making a submission that