p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.249 of 2026 Md. Aslam …. Petitioner Mr. S. Sethi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha represented through The secretary Home Department of nspector of Police, STF, CID, CB, Bhubaneswar. Inspector of Police, STF, CID, CB, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khordha, Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 08.07.2026 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 5.01.2026 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Crl. Misc. Case No.141 of 2025 arising out of S.T. Case No.232 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.270 of 2025, whereby the learned court in seisin rejected the prayer of the Petitioner under Section 503 of BNSS, p. 2 2023, seeking to unfreeze the Bank account of the Petitioner bearing No. 7178729938 of Indian Bank, Munger Branch. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stating that since in the case at hand charge sheet has already been filed and referring to the recitals of the charge sheet, it is submitted that the said account is primarily used for running his business in the name and style of “Muskan Distributor”, because of the freezing of the said account Petitioner is facing unsurmountable difficulties. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposes such prayer referring to the recitals of the charge sheet and submits that though the charge sheet has been filed, the investigation in the case at hand is open and the Petitioner has criminal proclivity in as much as he has been cited as accused in STF, Kolkota P.S. Case No.12 dated 31.07.2018, under Section 120(B)/ 489B/ 489C IPC read with Section 25(1)(a)/25(1B)(a) Arms Act. 5. On perusal of the order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, it is seen that learned Court taking into account the transaction in the account as well as the recitals in the charge sheet, which in the considered view of this Court, p. 3 prima facie, establish the complicity of the Petitioner has rejected the prayer for release. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the account which has been used in the commission of offence ought not to be allowed to be defreezed during currency of further investigation. 6. Taking into account the stage of investigation and the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner as noted hereinabove, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya