A trial court cannot refuse to entertain an application for defreezing a bank account frozen by police under Section 102 Cr.P.C. simply because the court did not pass the original freezing order, particularly after the accused has been acquitted.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….please to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents No.4 in freezing the account of the petitioner i.e., No. 0211527129, IFSC No.KKBK0002584 Kotak Mahindra Bank, Maninagar Branch, Ahmedabad, in relation the Crime No.231 of 2015 in C.C.No.267 of 2018 on the file of the Hon’ble VIII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and direct the respondent No.5 to de freeze the petitioner bank account as this court may deem fit.…”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is doing business in Ahmedabad, Gujarat State and is having bank account with Kotak Mahindra bank, Maninagar Branch, Ahmedabad bearing Account No. 0211527129, IFSC No. KKBK0002584. While so, respondent No.4 freezed the bank account of the petitioner without any information or letter/notice and on enquiry the petitioner came to know that respondent No.4 registered Crime No. 231 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 419, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 66 D of IT Act, 2000, and after investigation charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.267 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad, arraying petitioner as accused No.16. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4 has falsely implicated the petitioner as accused No.16 and freezed his bank account and after trial of the said C.C, all the accused in the said crime were acquitted on 06.08.2025. After acquittal, the petitioner approached respondent No.5-bank seeking to defreeze his bank account, but it was informed that the said bank account cannot be defreezed without court order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed Crl.MP.Sr.No.3977 of 2025 on 12.08.2025 before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for unfreezing the bank account, but the said Crl.M.P. was returned with the reason that "this court did not passing any freezing of account orders on 23.10.2025”. It is further submitted that the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad conducted trial and acquitted the petitioner on 06-8-2025 and on 22-11-2025, the petitioner sent a letter to respondent No.4 to defreeze his bank account but no action has been taken by respondent No.4 till date. Hence this writ petition.

3. Mr. M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that petitioner has to file a petition against order of the trial Court, where respondent No.4 has already submitted that the said fact of the seizure and the trial Court ought to have taken decision.

4. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and on perusal of the material it is a clear case that the Trial Court has passed impugned proceedings dated 23.10.2025 in S.R.No.3977 of 2025 in C.C.No.267 of 2018 returning the petition. On examination of the charge sheet it is clear that while exercising the powers under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, the bank account of the petitioner was frozen by respondent No.4 and charge sheet has been filed, but no orders are passed by the trial Court defreezing the petitioner’s account.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 23.10.2025 in S.R.No.3977 of 2025 in C.C.No.267 of 2018 passed by the Court of VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. The pet