Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish @ Vinay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-10901-2017
(SATISH @ VINAY YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
sh
5
e
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-11-2017
ad
Shri G.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Pr
Shri S.D. Khan, learned G.A for the respondent/State.
Heard.
a This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to invoke the hy extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to direct the Bank Manager of ad India, Branch Kamla Nehru Yadav Colony, Jabalpur to release the Account No. 940510110001668 and Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Branch M Garha having Account No. 781810000146 allegedly freezed by the Police, of Kotwali.
Bereft of the unnecessary details the facts requisite for disposal of rt this petition are that two murders were committed with conspiracy by ou employing hire killers in which Kakku Punjabi and Raju Mishra were killed. It is also alleged that accused person- Satish @ Vijay Yadav paid C Rs.20,000/- and Rs.55,000/- to accused Saiyad Saddam and Piyush Pandey h for hiring the contract killers. Crime No. 08/2017 has been registered under ig Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the H Arms Act against the petitioner- Satish @ Vijay Yadav, Himanshu Botham, Aurag Singh, Bhola @ Anand, Piyush Pandey, Saiyad Saddam and Rohit Rathore whereas the main accused Vijay Yadav along with five other accused persons are still absconded.
The bank accounts of the petitioner mentioned above have been freezed by the police. The petitioner moved an application for release of the same which was dismissed by the learned 11th A.S.J, Jabalpur vide order dated 20.06.2017.
The petitioner claims that he is innocent. He has been released on bail. Because he is unable to operate the account, his business suffered. The bank accounts have no nexus with the crime. The payment of money to accused Saddam and Piyush Pandey has been made legally. Therefore, the rejection of the application by the trial Court is perverse and is liable to be sh quashed and the petitioner requests for de-freezing the same.
Perused the memorandum of Satish @ Vinay Yadav dated e ad 07.03.2017, which indicates that for the murder of Kakku Punjabi and Raju Mishra, two persons namely Himanshu Botham and Rohit Rathore from Pr Gwalior and Anurag Singh and Bhola @ Anand Pandey from Banaras were called. The amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.55,000/- were transferred to a Saddam Hussain @ Marshel and Piyush Pandey on 03.01.2017 for meeting hy the expenses of these hired killers, for their stay and food etc. ad Learned G.A for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the M contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned trial Court has reasoned that other accused persons are yet to be of arrested, inter alia, the main accused- Vijay Yadav.
The apprehension of the prosecution that the other accused persons rt are yet to be arrested and it might be possible that this amount may be used ou for supporting the other accused persons cannot be ruled out. Hence, before C charge sheet is filed against all the accused persons, it would not be appropriate to de-freeze this account. h ig It is likely that if the amount is de-freezed, the petitioner would help and support the absconded accused persons. It is also stated by the learned H Court below that the accounts have not been seized in the criminal case. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to pass an order in this regard.
Whatever the seizure of property is made by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit in respect of the property or delivery of the such property to the person entitled for possession under Section 457 Cr.P.C. During the trial if such property is produced in any inquiry or trial, the Court may pass such an order under Section 451 Cr.P.C till the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, if the property is subjected to speedy and natural decay or expedient so to do. After the conclusion of the trial, the criminal Court may pass such order for the disposal by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to sh be entitled to possession thereof under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, the property is the bank account of the petitioner, e ad which has not been seized by police. It is actually freezed.
The law does not authorize the police to freeze such accounts. It is Pr not a case of disproportionate assets. The petitioner has been enlarged on bail. There is no such provision in the Cr.P.C for freezing the accounts.
a Therefore, this petition is dismissed.
hy ad (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE M of rt ou awinash C Digitally signed by AWINASH CHANDRA h Date: 2017.11.12 11:38:29 +05'30' ig H