Court quashes illegal bank account freeze lacking valid reasons, citing procedural errors

The court quashed an illegal prohibitory order freezing the petitioner's bank account, finding it lacked valid reasons and erroneously linked her to criminal activities. Despite arguments citing Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court ruled the freezing unjustified as no suspicion of an offense related to the account existed. Additionally, the respondents failed to comply with Section 102 requirements, leading to the order's invalidation. The court directed the respondents to pay interest on the frozen amount but denied the petitioner's costs request.

---

---

Issues involved: Freezing of bank account without valid reason, legality of prohibitory order, applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Summary:
1. The petitioner's bank account was frozen based on an erroneous prohibitory order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which incorrectly linked her to criminal activities. The court found the order to be illegal and lacking valid reasons, leading to its quashing.

2. The respondents argued that the freezing of the account was justified under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing precedents where property seizure was allowed. However, the court disagreed, stating that the circumstances did not create suspicion of an offense related to the bank account.

3. Even if Section 102 applied, the respondents failed to follow its requirements, such as informing the magistrate and the petitioner, and providing an opportunity to operate the account. The court emphasized that the funds in the account were not established as "case property," further invalidating the seizure.

4. Due to the above reasons, the court ordered the quashing of the prohibitory order and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner interest on the frozen amount. The petitioner's request for costs was denied, considering the interest awarded during the petition's pendency.

Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---