ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the fifth respondent in freezing the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.3503120010000180 at Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Deoghar Branch, Jharkand, without issuing notice to the petitioner, basing on the complaint registered as FIR No.79/2023, dated 22.01.2023 of P.S. Miyapur, Cyberabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed to direct the fifth respondent to defreeze the petitioner’s bank account and for other reliefs.

2. The petitioner claims to be running a Kirana Store and for his business purpose, he opened bank account with the fifth respondent-Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Deoghar Branch, Jharkand vide account bearing No.3503120010000180. The petitioner’s account has been freezed in connection with Crime No.79 of 2023 registered for the alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent, without issuing any notice as required under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C., has freezed the petitioner’s bank account.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that, as per Section 102 Cr.P.C., a 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, after reporting the seizure to the Magistrate concerned by following the procedure as contemplated under sub-Clause (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and as such, freezing of the petitioner’s bank account amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that neither the name of the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.79 of 2023 of P.S. Miyapur, Cyberabad nor the petitioner is remotely connected with the said crime to freeze his bank account.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 has submitted that the petitioner’s bank account was freezed for involvement of transactions in Crime No.79 of 2023 and as such, the said account was freezed by the fifth respondent on the instructions issued by the respondent- police. It is also stated that the respondent-police have followed the procedure, as contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is not a fit case to direct the respondents to defreeze the petitioner’s bank account.

6. It is settled law that the bank account of the accused/petitioner or any of his relation constitutes ‘property’ within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer concerned can seize operation of the said account if such assets have direct link with commission of offence. Since it is the case of the fifth respondent that the petitioner’s bank account has been freezed in connection with Crime No.79 of 2023 of P.S.Miyapur, Cyberabad, the petitioner is entitled to move an appropriate application on the file of the Court concerned in accordance with law.

7. Since the petitioner is having a right to file an application under Section 451 read with Section 457 Cr.P.C., if his account has been freezed contrary to Section 102 Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition relegating the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Court concerned. If such application is filed, the Court concerned is directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders for defreezing the petitioner’s bank account, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

8. With the above observations, the W