AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cr.) No.976 of 2022 Uday Singha, S/o Ajay Kumar Singha, aged about 28 years, R/o Subar Nator, Bankura, Salbedi (West Bengal)

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Bawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. Station House Officer, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, S.M.E. Branch, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner: Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 to 3 / State: -

Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer, on advance copy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.

Order On Board (13/12/2022)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order Annexure P-1 by which the petitioner’s savings bank account has been freezed on a complaint made by one Jai Prakash Agrawal, Proprietor of Mining Industries Private Limited, Bilaspur, on 29-1-2022, whereas the first information report (FIR) against him was registered on 10-2-2022 which is unsustainable and bad in view of the provisions contained in Section

102 of the CrPC.

2. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that without registration of FIR, savings bank account of the petitioner has been freezed which runs contrary to the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the matter of Mrs. B. Kavitha v.

The Inspector of Police and another¹

3. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State / respondents No.1 to 3, would submit that bank account is a property within the meaning of Section 102 of the CrPC, therefore, remedy of the petitioner would be to file application under Section 457 of the CrPC.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. In order to decide the dispute between the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 102 of the CrPC, which states as under:-

“102. Power of police officer to seize certain property—(1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub- section (1)

shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:

1 Crl.O.P.No.14824 of 2019, decided on 11-6-2019 Provided that where the property seized under sub-

section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of section 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.”

6. A careful perusal o