Sec 102 CrPC | Police Officer Empowered To Seize Property Only If Found Under Circumstances Creating Suspicion Of Any Offence: Himachal Pradesh HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday ordered defreezing of the account of an accused observing that Section 102 CrPC (Power of police officer to seize certain property) empowers the Police Officer to seize certain property on existence of a condition that the said property should have been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday ordered defreezing of the account of an accused observing that Section 102 CrPC (Power of police officer to seize certain property) empowers the Police Officer to seize certain property on existence of a condition that the said property should have been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence.
The observations were made by Justice Vivek Singh Thakur while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had approached the Court against the dismissal of her application by the Magistrate, for release/de-freezing her Saving Bank Accounts in State Bank of India.
The Petitioner had approached the trial Court under Section 457 CrPC for release/de-freezing of account numbers of the petitioner but the said application was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that investigation was pending.
While examining the record the bench noted that the respondent-Investigating Agency has completed the investigation and as per conclusion of investigation, no offence was found to be committed by the petitioner and, therefore, cancellation report was prepared and submitted to Law Officer for vetting and verification.
The bench further noted that the said cancellation report was returned by the Law Officer with certain comments and as per Investigating Agency steps for removing objections raised by the Law Officer are in progress and investigation is yet to be completed.
In its bid to answer the moot question as to whether the account of the petitioner could continued to be kept under freeze or otherwise the bench observed that Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Police Officer to seize certain property on existence of certain condition which is pre-requisite, empowering the Police Officer to seize such property. He can seize any property, but the said property should have been the property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence, it underscored.
Deliberating further on the matter the bench observed that the commission of any offence or levelling allegations of commission of offence is not sufficient to freeze the accounts of a person except as permissible under law and that too when such pendency of investigation extends for an infinite period, particularly when the property is neither a suspected stolen property nor there is any nexus between the property, i.e. Bank accounts and the commission of alleged offence by the accused.
In the aforesaid circumstances the Court found that neither ingredients of Section 102 CrPC are existing to empower the Police Officer to seize the bank accounts of the petitioner nor any nexus or link has been pointed out, much less established, by the Investigating Agency between the offence allegedly, as per complainant, committed by the petitioner and operation of bank accounts concerned.
Accordingly the bench found the petitioner entitled for de-freezing of her accounts mentioned and to operate them in accordance with law subject to furnishing personal bond for an amount lying deposited in the bank accounts at the time of freezing of these bank accounts by giving undertaking therein to produce the said amount in the Court or anywhere else, wherever directed by the Court during trial or on conclusion of trial.
Case Title: Anita Aggarwal Vs State of HP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 14