Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Bumb vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1289 of 2022
Between:-
1. PRAVEEN BUMB S/O BABULAL BUMB , AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
BRAJDHAM RESIDENCY 196, SAKET NAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANGEETA BUMB W/O PRAVEEN BUMB , AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
BRAJDHAM RESIDENCY 196, SAKET NAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KASTURI CHEMTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. THR ITS
AUTHORIZED PERSON INDRA SINGH S/O
SUMER SINGH DAGLIYA , AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR 103, DEMAND
TRADE CENTRE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKASH RATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
AERODRUM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI N.S BHATI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
PRAVEEN KACHOLE - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SOURABH YADAV Date: 2022.05.10 18:26:38 IST Cr.P.C for defreezing the bank accounts of the applicants.
The present revision petition is preferred against the impugned 2 order dated 24.03.2022 passed in ST No.54/2022 pertaining to crime no.15/2022 registered at police station Aerodrome, Indore for the offence under section 420, 467, 406, 468 of the IPC and 6(1) of the MP Nikshepako Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 passed by 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore whereby, the Court has dismissed the application preferred by the applicants under section 451 read with section 457 of the Cr.P.C for defreezing of the bank accounts of the applicants which were freezed on the order of the investigating authorities.
The facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at police station Aerodrom Indore on 05.04.2022 in crime no.15/2022 for the offence under section 420, 467, 406, 468 of the IPC and section 6(1) of the MP Nikshpak Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 against the co-accused persons and applicant no.1 implicating them on the basis of memorandum prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act. During the investigation, the investigating authority ordered the bank to freeze the bank accounts of the applicants. The details of the bank accounts are as follows:-
name of Nature the Bank Branch S.No. A/C number of account Name Details account holder Prem Praveen PNB Saving Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by 1 Trade 0891010039012 Bumb Bank bank SAN SOURABH YADAV Date: 2022.05.10 18:26:38 IST Centre Freeganj 3 2 Praveen IDBI branch 08810400046109 Saving Bumb Bank Ujjain Bank Sangeeta ICICI Freeganj Saving 3 030001506314 Bumb Bank Ujjain Bank Kasturi Chemtech PNB Premtrade Saving 4 0891250332354 India Pvt. Bank Centre Bank Ltd Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants preferred an application under section 451 read with 457 of the Cr.P.C before the trial Court for defreezing the aforesaid bank accounts. However, the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of the apprehension that liberty to operate the bank account may be misused by the applicants during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant nos.2 and 3 are not accused in the present case. The applicant no.1 is only the accused in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicants are ready to furnish undertaking and security before the trial Court before defreezing the accounts to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that in case if the amount of the account is directed to be forfeited, the same shall be made available before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state and the objector submits that the applicant no.1 is an accused in the case and there is likely to misuse the liberty and therefore, the direction may be issued to furnish Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SOURABH YADAV adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial Court before permitting Date: 2022.05.10 18:26:38 IST the applicants to operate the accounts.
4After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant no.1 is the accused in the aforesaid case and the applicant nos.2 and 3 are not an accused in the present case and therefore, freezing of the accounts of all the persons including the persons who are not accused would not be in the interest of justice. The applicants are the businessmen and they have to operate the accounts for the purpose of business. However, it is directed that before defreezing all the accounts and granting permission to the applicants for operating the accounts, the applicants shall furnish undertaking and security to the satisfaction of the trial court to the effect that the amount lying in the account shall be secured during the pendency of the trial.
With the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider the undertaking and security furnished by the applicant before granting permission for operating the accounts.
With the aforesaid, the present criminal revision stands allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.05.10
18:26:38 IST