Form No. J(2) Item No. DL / 19 RANAJIT – A.R.(CT) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 16328 OF 2026 Amit Auto Credit Co. Private Limited & Anr. -Vs- Punjab National Bank & Ors. BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA For the Petitioners : Mr. Indranil Roy, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Srivastawa, Mr. Supratic Roy, Mr. I. Munshi For the Defecto-complainant : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. Subhajit Das, Ms. Arunika Dutta For the State : Mr. Debabrata Mondal, Ms. Sreetam Neogi Hearing concluded on : 23.07.2026 Judgment on : 23.07.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.: 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. P a g e | 2 2. Petitioner company has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for direction upon the concerned police authorities for defreezing bank account of petitioner company being no.0091002100902066 maintained with Coke-Oven Branch, Punjab National Bank. Such step was taken at the instance of investigating agency in connection with a criminal prosecution being Kanksa Police Station Case No.152/25 dated 4th June, 2025. 3. According to Mr. Roy, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner genesis of aforesaid criminal prosecution is complaint made on behalf of M/s. Jayshree Steel Private Limited narrating monetary transaction to the tune of Rs.49.41 crore thereby crediting the same to the account of the petitioner company in 2018 whereas criminal prosecution was initiated in 2025. 4. According to the petitioner, it is a civil dispute and there is no criminality attached to this requiring debit-freezing of aforesaid bank account. Prayer is made in this writ petition for directing the concerned police authorities to defreeze aforesaid account. 5. Learned advocate representing the State respondents has filed a communication dated 17th July, 2026 of Inspector-in-Charge, Kanksa Police Station and same is taken on record. Copies of the communication dated 17th July, 2026 are made over to the learned advocates representing the petitioner and intervenor. P a g e | 3 6. Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate represents M/s. Jayshree Steel Private Limited being intervenor. 7. It is submitted on approach being made by two persons, namely, Abhishek Munka and Pawan Munka that Rs.49.41 crore was transmitted to the aforesaid account of petitioner company and it was assured that such investment would fetch interest @2% per month. Ultimately, such assurance given on behalf of the aforesaid two persons could not be fulfilled thereby giving rise to criminal prosecution. 8. It is disclosed in the communication dated 17th July, 2026 that in spite of repeated persuasion through phone calls, e-mails and reminders repayment against investment made by aforesaid intervenor was not made. 9. It is also suspected by the police authority that petitioner company deceitfully induced M/s. Jayshree Steel Private Limited to part with huge sum amounting Rs.49.41 crore by misrepresentation and concealing material information regarding financial standing, operations and ownership of the petitioner company. Based on such premise, aforesaid criminal prosecution was initiated. 10. As per order of Commissioner of Police, Asansol Durgapur Police Commissionerate dated 13th June, 2025 Special SP, CID, West Bengal made over case diary along with connected papers to one P a g e | 4 Sub-Inspector of Asansol Durgapur, DD, CID for further investigation of the aforesaid case. 11. In view of facts narrated on behalf of the respective parties and taking note of the contents of the communication dated 17th July, 2026 if today bank account in question is permitted to be operated by the petitioner company on defreezing the same, in that event there is possibility of frustrating the investigation which is being carried out as allegation is aforesaid account is repository of proceeds of crime. 12. However, this Court cannot brush aside the fact that it was alleged Rs.49.41 crore was credited to the account in question by the intervenor on request being made on behalf of petitioner company, whether said Abhishek Munka and Pawan Munka are related to the petitioner company or not needs to be investigated and this Court expects that report on completion of investigation to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate shall reveal the same. 13. In aforesaid conspectus, at this stage Court is not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner company thereby directing the bank authority to defreeze the account in question. 14. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)