HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13415 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank account of the petitioner was ceased by the police on account of registration of first information report in Case Crime No.426 of 2023 under section 406, 419, 420,467, 468, 471, 379, 411 I.P.C. Police Station- Karwi, District Chitrakoot. Learned counsel submitted that application moved by the petitioner for defreezing the bank account was erroneously dismissed by the trial court, vide its order dated 23.4.2024, by holding that investigation in the case is still pending. He further submitted that investigation in the case was already completed before his application for defreezing the bank account was filed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.4.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.28 of 2025 (Upendra Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P.) which was also dismissed by the revisional court on 9.7.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both courts have wrongly held that investigation of the case is still continuing. The bank account of other similarly placed co-accused have already been defreezed by orders of the Magistrate Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court dismissing the application of the petitioner for defreezing the bank account are illegal and are liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Upendra Nath Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned AGA submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded his finding to the effect that the matter is still under investigation. He further submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that amount of money in his bank account was gained by committing fraud. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and they do not require any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This Court has not come to any conclusion that whether the application for defreezing the bank account was filed before the filing of the charge- sheet or it was filed after the charge-sheet was submitted. This Court presumes that the application of the petitioner for defreezing the bank account was filed before the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application for defreezing his bank account. If any such application is moved by the petitioner before the concerned court, the concerned court will properly consider each and every objection raised by the petitioner before passing any order. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. March 25, 2026 SK A227 No. 13415 of 2024 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad