Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8698 (UTT)

Satish Industries v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-03-12

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners i.e. M/s Satish Industries through its proprietor Amit Kumar Jain with the following relief: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to immediately un” Debit Freeze” the petitioner’s bank accounts bearing account numbers 05374011000508 (CC Account) in Punjab National Bank, Hapur Branch. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the two accounts of the petitioner’s firm i.e. Credit Account No. 05374011000508 and Saving Account No. 05372010061060 with the Punjab National Bank, Hapur Branch of District Hapur, U.P. were freezed on 15.05.2025 on the instance of Cyber Crime Cell, Haridwar, only on account of the fact that in respect of a First Information Report dated 24.08.2022 bearing FIR No. 462 of 2022 Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma @ Vedanand Saraswati, Veena Sharma and Mukesh Gaur have been chargesheeted on completion of the investigation and before lodging the First Information Report their accounts were seized, however, subsequently after charge-sheet their accounts were again defreezed and thereafter certain amount were withdrawn and credited in the account of petitioner’s firm to purchase alloy sheets and subsequent thereto, again the Cyber Crime freezed their accounts and simultaneously freezed the accounts of the petitioners. 3. He argued that petitioners’ firm and their employees are neither implicated in the FIR nor they have been chargesheeted and infact they have no nexus with the aforesaid First Information Report, however the account of the firm was freezed only on account of the fact that when the accounts of the accused persons were defreezed certain amounts were withdrawn and credited in the account of petitioner’s firm. 4. He submits that freezing of the accounts of the petitioner’s firm is wholly illegal, unwarranted since the same have been freezed only on account of the fact that the accounts of the persons who have been chargesheeted were freezed. 5. 4. He submits that freezing of the accounts of the petitioner’s firm is wholly illegal, unwarranted since the same have been freezed only on account of the fact that the accounts of the persons who have been chargesheeted were freezed. 5. In addition to this, learned counsel submits that the persons against whom the chargesheet was filed they approach to this court by filing an application under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1489 of 2025 ‘Mukesh Gaur and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ for defreezing their account and the Coordinate Bench of this court allowed the same by judgment and order dated 12.11.2025, operative part of which is being reproduced herein as under: “In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove and for the reasons recorded, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order/direction issued by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, whereby the bank accounts of the applicants were placed under debit freeze and their operation was restrained, is hereby quashed. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the trial court from exercising its jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in respect of the said bank accounts or the amounts lying therein, in accordance with law, if so, warranted during the course of the trial. It is further clarified that the prosecution shall remain at liberty to move the competent court for appropriate relief, if circumstances so require. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” 6. By referring the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary submits that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing since the petitioner’s firm, their employees and their agents are not facing any trial arising out of the First Information Report dated 24.08.2022 bearing FIR No. 462 of 2022, therefore, freezing of the account of the petitioner’s firm is wholly unwarranted and illegal. 7. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, who appears for respondent no. 3-Bank submits that the Bank is the formal party, however, he has not disputed this fact that the petitioner’s firm is not an accused in the aforesaid FIR. 8. Mr. 7. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, who appears for respondent no. 3-Bank submits that the Bank is the formal party, however, he has not disputed this fact that the petitioner’s firm is not an accused in the aforesaid FIR. 8. Mr. Joshi, learned A.G.A., also have not disputed this fact that the petitioners are not the accused in relation to the FIR dated 24.08.2022 and the petitioner’s accounts were freezed only on account of the fact that during the period when the accounts of the accused persons, who were the accused in the aforesaid FIR, were defreezed certain amounts were credited in the petitioner’s account. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that freezing of the account of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and as such the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed, a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent no.3 i.e. Branch Manger of Punjab National Bank, Hapur Branch, U.P. to defreeze the account of the petitioners forthwith. 11. No order as to costs.