Condition imposed for release of seized funds subject to bank guarantee equivalent to amount is invalid when accused not connected with the Company entitled to such funds and also discharged of alleged offence. Freezing of assets and imposition of bank guarantee against appellant is not permissible where investigation against the appellant Company, itself is rendered redundant. Company’s bank account cannot be frozen for criminal investigation against unrelated party. Held, Since the appellant company is not connected to the alleged crime, and has not found mention in the FIR or the chargesheet, the freeze order against the appellant company’s properties is redundant qua the investigation, since the appellant company itself is not necessary for the conclusion of the investigation. As a consequence, the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount along with 4% simple interest, which shall be payable from 08.05.2006 till the date of actual payment.
[Jermyn Capital LLC v. CBI, (2023) 7 SCC 810]
Case Comment: The purpose of Section 102 of the CrPC is to secure the property which has been or suspected to be stolen or which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime from being ‘disposed of’ or ‘destroyed’. Such a measure of seizing property ensures that the court is able to get back the property concerned but it is invalid when accused not connected with the Company entitled to such funds and also discharged of alleged offence. Since the appellant company is not connected to the alleged crime, and has not found mention in the FIR or the chargesheet, the freeze order against the appellant company’s properties is redundant qua the investigation
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/