28.07.2026 Sl. No.A476 Ct. No.237 S.A. CRR 1872 of 2026 Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Limited -vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal Mr. Karan Dudhwewala …for the petitioner Let the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with the record. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 24 November 2025 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas. It appears from the materials on record that opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint before Garfa Police Station, which was diarised as G.D.E. No. 65 dated 1 November 2025. The opposite party no. 2 alleged that unauthorised transactions had taken place in her Bank of Baroda Account No. 40950100006601, maintained at the Kalikapur Branch, on 24 September 2025 and 28 October 2025, resulting in a loss of ₹72,00,000. It further appears that, pursuant to the said complaint, the Cyber Cell, South Suburban Division, froze an amount of ₹31,65,020 lying in the suspected Account No. 803630110000004 maintained with the Bank of India, Chennai Branch. The petitioner claims to be the holder of the said account. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed an application before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore seeking a direction upon the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Chennai Branch, 2 to release and revert the aforesaid amount of ₹31,65,020 to her bank account. In connection with the said application, the Investigating Officer of Garfa Police Station submitted a report conveying that the Investigating Agency had no objection to the release of the frozen amount in favour of the opposite party no. 2. By an order dated 11 November 2025, the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Chennai Branch, to release the amount of ₹31,65,020 and transfer the same to the bank account of the de facto complainant. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, although the petitioner claims to be the holder of the account from which the amount was directed to be released. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the alleged unauthorised transactions affecting the account of opposite party no. 2. This Court finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In the absence of the petitioner, who claims to be the holder of Account No. 803630110000004 maintained with the Bank of India, Chennai Branch, the Learned Magistrate ought not to have directed release of the amount of ₹31,65,020 from the said account for transfer to the account of opposite party no. 2 without first affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly submits that the order dated 11 November 2025 has already been complied with by the concerned Branch Manager of the Bank of India, Chennai Branch. 3 In view of the aforesaid, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Learned Magistrate in seisin of the matter within a period of seven days from the date of this order. Upon such application being filed, the Learned Magistrate shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Investigating Agency and opposite party no. 2, if she chooses to appear, consider the petitioner's prayer and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, CRR 1872 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)