Item No.34 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.101/2022 c/w CRM(M) No.110/2022 MOHAMMAD SULTAN LONE & ORS. …PETITIONER(S) Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate. Vs. INCHARGE OFFICER CBI ACB & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Shagufta & Mr. Faizan, Advocate. Mr. Ishfaq Muzamil Nehvi, Advocate. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 09.07.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Kashmir Srinagar, whereby their application seeking permission to operationalize the bank accounts maintained by them with J&K Grameen Bank, Khumeriyal Kupwara and to permit them to withdraw the amounts lying in the bank accounts, has been partly declined. 2. It appears that pursuant to FIR No.RC 01(A)/2020 of Police Station, CBI, ACB, Srinagar, for commission of offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, a challan came to be filed before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as 2 the “the trial court”). During pendency of the said challan, the petitioners filed applications seeking a direction upon the Manager, J&K Grameen Bank, Khumeriyal, to operationalize the accounts maintained by them with the said bank and to permit them to withdraw the amounts deposited by them in their accounts. It was pleaded by the petitioners that they are not in any way involved in the commission of any offence which is subject matter of the said challan and they have nothing to do with the person who has been impleaded as accused in the said challan. 3. In answer to the aforesaid applications of the petitioners, the Manager, J&K Grameen Bank, Khumeriyal, took a stand that the account maintained by the petitioner Mohammad Sultan Lone has not been freezed but it is only under lien. It was further submitted that the account maintained by other petitioners Ab. Ahad Mir and Mohammad Mochi have not been freezed and the bank has no objection if their saving accounts are unfreezed after making a lien on the amount/credit balance on the date of subjecting these accounts to debt-freeze or fraud-amount, whichever is higher so that the account holders are able to operate their accounts and withdraw the amount received in such accounts after the partial freeze date. In respect of petitioner Abdul Rashid Mir, it has been contended that the account maintained by him cannot be unfreezed as the available balance in the said account is less than the amount transferred from the fraudulent accounts. 4. The prosecution in their objections took a stand that even though the applicants have not been named as accused in the case but the 3 proceeds of crime committed by the accused have been transferred to their bank accounts. It was also submitted that it is the authorities of the Grameen Bank who, after conducting an internal inquiry into the matter and without any direction from the Investigating Agency, have freezed the accounts of the petitioners. 5. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and after analyzing the material on record, passed the following directions: In the circumstances, this application is disposed of with the direction's to the Manager, JKGB: Khumeriyal, to operationalize the Nos. 3568040101015; 3568040101051; 3568040101456; 3568040101456 & 356804010001175 maintained by applicants: 1) Abdul Ahad Mir S/o Ab. Aziz Mir R/o Azgund Khumriyal, Kupwara; 2) Mohammad Sultan Lone S/o Fateh Mohammad Lone R/o Khumriyal, Kupwara; 3) Abdul Rashid Mir S/o Jaffar Mir R/o Azgund Khumriyal, Kupwara and 4) Mohammad Mochi S/o Ali Mohammad Mochi R/o Khumriyal, Kupwara respectively subject to the condition/s that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- lying in the account no. 3568040101015 of Abdul Ahad Mir (the applicant no. 1 herein); and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- lying in the account no. 356804010001175 of Mohd. Mochi (the applicant no. 4 herein) shall not be released till further orders from this Court. The account No. 3568040101051 of the applicant no. 2, namely Mohammad Sultan, shall be made operational after marking a lien for a sum of Rs. 5,98,000/- only and the account no. 356804010-1456 of the applicant no. 3, namely Abdul Rashid Mir, shall be made operational subject to the condition that a sum of Rs. 13,03,523/- lying in his account shall not be released till further directions from this Court and further a lien shall be marked to the extent of the total amount, i.e. Rs. 22,40,000/- which has been fraudulently transferred into his account. This order is further subject to the condition that the applicant/s shall furnish (separate) undertaking/s that if any loss accrues to the JKGB: Khumeriyal or any other individual on 4 account of this order then in that eventuality they shall make good every such loss. This application is disposed off accordingly. Record of this file be properly compiled and made part of the main file. 6. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that they have deposited their hard-earned money in their saving bank accounts maintained with the respondent Bank and that they need the said amount for meeting their social obligations. It has been further contended that the respondent Bank cannot retain part of the amount deposited in the accounts of the petitioners as it has no right of lien over the said amount. It has also been contended that the petitioners are not only entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in their bank accounts but they are also entitled to earn interest thereon. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 8. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it is not in dispute that they are not involved in the alleged crime which is subject matter of the challan pending before the trial court. It is also not in dispute that the accounts, regarding which the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court, pertain to the petitioners. It is the case of the prosecution that the main accused had transferred proceeds of crime in the accounts of the petitioners without their knowledge. This amount has been assessed as Rs.22.40 lacs and the same has been transferred into the accounts of the petitioners. While the petitioners may not be the persons involved in the alleged crime, the fact of the matter remains that the proceeds of the alleged crime stand transferred to their accounts. 5 Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly allowed the petitioners to operate their accounts maintained with respondent Bank but at the same time the respondent Bank has been permitted to mark lien to the extent of the amount deposited in their accounts which represents the proceeds of the crime. The learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, has safeguarded the interests of the petitioners as also the interests of the victims from whom the money has been swindled in an illegal manner by the accused, whereafter the same has been deposited by him in the bank accounts of the petitioners. 9. The contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by them in their bank accounts may be correct but they cannot be allowed to withdraw the amount which has been fraudulently deposited by the accused in their accounts because the said money does not belong to the petitioners. The said amount is required to be freezed as the same does not qualify to be the property of the petitioners/account holders. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the learned trial court. The petitions lack merit and are dismissed accordingly. Interim direction(s), if any shall stand vacated. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 09.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 02:51