ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant seeks to challenge, the impugned order dated 02.06.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Mirzapur, Ahmedbad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 334 of 2021, whereby, the Court was pleased to dismiss the application for de-freeze the bank accounts and three FDRs, attached in connection with FIR being CR. No. 11191027201017 of 2020 registered with Karanj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406,409,420, 120B of the IPC, and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment), Act, 2003.

2. Brief facts giving rise to file present petition is that, the applicant herein, being a promoter of Maruti Krupa Agri- producer Co. Ltd, has been arraigned in the alleged offence as referred above as accused no. 3. During the course of investigation, 2 bank accounts, of the applicant jointly held by his wife have been freezed by the Investigating Agency. The Agency has also freezed 3 FDRs, wherein the applicant is the first holder along with his wife. The applicant herein moved an application under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, read with Section 451 before the learned Special Judge for de-freezing the bank accounts as well as FRDs. The learned Special Judge vide order dated 02.06.2021, thought it fit to dismiss the application, observing that the investigating agency has complied with the mandatory provision as contemplated under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C..

3. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the applicant herein is before this Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction to de-freez the bank accounts and FDRs.

4. Mr. Arpit Kapadia, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, vehemently submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the settled provisions of law, more particularly, the mandatory requirement of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. On factual aspect, he submitted that the applicant herein is the promoter of the company and have nothing to do with the alleged act and misdeed of principal accused, who is Director of the Company and therefore, while rejecting the application, the Court below has not applied its mind to appreciate the fact that the amount lying the bank accounts and invested in the FDRs are personal property of the applicant.

5. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Gangaben Govindbhai Vajesinh Vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 (0) AIJEL- High Court, 237179, learned counsel contended that the investigating agency did not inform the concerned Court regarding the prohibitory order and failed to serve notice of seizure permitting the applicant to operate the bank account subject to his executing a bond undertaking to produce the amount in court as and when required.

6. On the other hand, this petition has been vehemently opposed by Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State. She would submit that the investigating officer, had followed the requirement as contemplated under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.. She would submit that no error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Special Judge in passing the impugned order.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, the only that falls for my consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to relief as prayed for?

8. Before proceeding further, the observations made by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of Ms. Swaran Sabharwal Vs. Commissioner of Police, (1988) 0 Cr.L.J. 241, may be noted, which reads as under, “…… in to the case of seizure of a bank account, the police officer should have done two things : he should have informed the concerned magistrate forthwith regarding the prohibitory order. He should have also give notice of the seizure to the petitioner and followed her to operate the bank account subject to her executing a bond unde