IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5678 of 2021 ==========================================================

TRIVENDRAKUMAR SOMALAL BHANDARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MRS KRINA CALLA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 12/04/2022

ORAL ORDER

1. 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 Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, Ahmedbad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 333 of 2021, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the application for de-freeze the bank accounts and three FDRs, attached in connection with FIR FIR being CR. No. 11191026200373 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

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 complied 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

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. In the alternative, she would submit that if this Court is inclined to permit the applicant to operate accounts, then, interest of the prosecution may be protected by imposing suitable conditions.

7. Having heard th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document