The court held that the release of frozen funds to a complainant under Section 503 BNSS is permissible if secured by a personal bond, as this provides a mechanism to return the funds to the accused if they are later exonerated.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2026 in Dis.No.52 of 2026 passed by the VI- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

The applicant who is respondent No.2 herein filed application to refund the amount which was frozen under Section 503 of BNSS in Sections context to the NCRP Ack.No.33707250032374 dated 24.07.2025 of Uppal P.S., and the Court allowed the said application and directed to return the amount of Rs.47,000/- seized, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.47,000/- in the concerned police station which should not be less than the value of the seized amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused in the present crime filed this revision case.

Heard Sri Jaswanth Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Court below is illegal, arbitrary, and non-compliance with the procedure established by law. It is submitted that the application filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 503 of BNSS for release of the seized amount was not even properly numbered and was disposed of mechanically without considering the counter filed by the petitioner or discussing the rival claims. The order dated 19.11.2025, as well as the subsequent correction order dated 09.01.2026, were passed without assigning any reasons and without appreciating the facts and evidence on record. The learned counsel further submits that although both the petitioner’s application under Section 497 of BNSS for de-freezing of the account and respondent No.2 application under Section 503 BNSS were heard together, only the petitioner’s application was decided by a reasoned order, whereas the application of respondent No.2 was allowed later without any speaking order or proper adjudication.

It is contended that the investigation conducted by Respondent No.1 is neither fair nor complete. No FIR was registered, and the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account was not intimated to the Magistrate forthwith, as required under law. The freezing of the account, therefore, is illegal and violative of the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The counsel submits that without proper investigation, the authorities wrongly concluded that the amount in the petitioner’s account belongs to respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a legitimate business and holds a valid bank account, supported by proper identity documents and certifications. The allegation that the petitioner’s account is fake is baseless and contrary to the records obtained from the bank. The learned counsel also contends that the police acted hastily in freezing the account without verifying facts and without following due process. Hence, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order by allowing this criminal revision case.

On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said submissions and contended that there is no illegality in the order of trial Court. The amount was already recovered from the petitioner and if revision petitioner has no role, the said amount can be transferred to the account of petitioner.

Considering the said submissions, as the amount is only Rs.47,000/- which was already returned by the trial Court to respondent No.2, by taking personal bond and also there is a protection to the petitioner, that if he has no role in the said crime, automatically, it can be returned to him. Hence, there are no merits in this revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.