A bank account cannot be frozen without a direct complaint against the account holder, especially when there is no justification to impede the investigation.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated

13.05.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha , 2023. The said application is filed to defreeze the petitioner's bank account bearing No.2614101005954 in Canara Bank, Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru.

3. The petitioner contend that a false source of income report is created on 09.12.2024 alleging that the petitioner's husband has amassed wealth disproportionate to the known his source of income and without holding any preliminary enquiry based on hearsay evidence and the erroneous source report, the case is registered in Crime No.1/2025.

4. It is not in dispute that the petition is filed by the husband of the petitioner assailing to quash the aforementioned complaint and the case is pending in W.P. No.3579/2025 and further proceedings are stayed vide order dated 07.02.2025.

5. The petitioner has filed the application that there is no justification to freeze the bank accounts. The Trial Court has rejected the application accepting the objection filed by the respondent. The application is rejected on the premise that the investigation is still pending and in case the account is defreezed, it would seriously prejudice the investigation.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the amount credited and debited from the account of the petitioner will be borne out in the records maintained by the concerned bank and merely because the amount is withdrawn, the respondent will not be put to any prejudice and it will not hamper the investigation.

7. It is also urged that there is no complaint against the petitioner and the complaint is only against the petitioner's husband.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the very investigation is stayed in view of the petition filed by the husband of the petitioner for quashing the complaint.

9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at he bar.

10. The allegation against the husband of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner has amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. If the husband of the petitioner has amassed huge wealth disproportionate to known source of income and that amount is kept in the bank as alleged by the respondent, the details are available in the bank account of the petitioner.

11. Under these circumstances, the respondent cannot contend that the account of the petitioner has to be freezed as it is not the case of the respondent that it has initiated case to recover the amount from the petitioner.

12. Under these circumstances, the application to defreeze the bank account ought to have been allowed. Merely because the petition of the petitioner's husband is pending for quashing the complaint, does not constitute a ground to reject the application of the petitioner. Hence, the following:-

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 13.05.2025 in Criminal Misc. No.566/2025 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru and Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act is set-aside.

(iii) The petitioner's bank account bearing No.2614101005954 in Canara Bank, Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru is ordered to be de-

freezed.

(iv) The petitioner shall furnish the details of the transaction as and when requisitioned by the respondent.