Ajith Anant Padiwal vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 5661 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ajith Anant Padiwal vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2025

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/SCR.A/14197/2024                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

                                                                                                                      undefined




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                             R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.14197 of 2024
                                               (DIRECTION)

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI                                  :        Sd/-

                      =======================================================

                               Approved for Reporting     Yes      No
                                                           -        √
                      =======================================================
                                        AJITH ANANT PADIWAL
                                               Versus
                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      =======================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR DHRUVIN D MEHTA(9665) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR YASH G PATEL(9316) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2
                      =======================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                       Date : 15/04/2025
                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties waive service of notice of rule.

2. By filing instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC" for short), the petitioner has prayed for direction to fully unfreeze and unblock the amount of Rs.94,00,000/- from the bank Account No.05491000010093 maintained with HDFC Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/14197/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Dhruvin Mehta for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondents.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is doing business and for the said business, the petitioner has opened bank account with HDFC Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru having Account No.05491000010093. He, however, submitted that one FIR being C.R. No.11191010230171/2023 has been registered with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 25.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 66(C)(D) and 75 of the I.T. Act and under Sections 23(E), 23(A), 23(F), 23(G) and 23(H) of Security Contract Regulation Act against total 20 accused persons, wherein the petitioner is not named and the petitioner was never called by the concerned police for interrogation, however during the course of investigation, some entries between the petitioner and one Ajaykumar Jitendrakumar Jain, who is one of the co-accused in connection with aforesaid FIR, were found in the account, therefore, instruction was forwarded by the concerned Investigating Officer to the Bank, wherein the petitioner is having account, to freeze his

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/14197/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

account and pursuant to the said instruction, entire account of the petitioner has been freezed by the bank concerned. He submitted that because of the freezing of the account, the petitioner submitted an application before the court of the leaned Magistrate, Ahmedabad for de-freezing of the account, however, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, by an order dated 27.07.2023, was pleased to partly allow the said application and ordered to de-

freeze the account of the petitioner but entry of Rs.94,00,000/- only, is to be remained freeze till further order, therefore, the petitioner has preferred present petition for de-freezing entire account.

5. Learned advocate has drawn attention towards the bank statement of the petitioner produced at Annexure-B at Page No.42 of the compilation and submitted that in fact, the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.94,00,000/- from one Realferro Infracon LLP for his business purpose as there was friendly relationship with the owner of said company and the said borrowed amount has already been repaid by the petitioner to him and the said entries are reflected in the bank statements. He, therefore, submitted that because of those entries, the account of the petitioner has been freezed but in fact, the petitioner is not directly or indirectly connected with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/14197/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

alleged commission of crime, for which, aforesaid FIR has been lodged.

6. Learned advocate, at this stage, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Jermyn Capital Dubai Llc Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., reported in (2023) 7 SCC 810 and submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the freezing of the bank account of the third party after the investigation is not maintainable and deos not sustain in eye of law. Thus referring to the said decision, it is submitted that in the present case also, the petitioner is not at all directly or indirectly connected with the alleged commission of crime, therefore, freezing of his account is also against the said decision and is required to be de-freezed. He further submitted that in the present case, the investigation is already concluded and case is pending before the competent court for trial and more than 100 witnesses have been cited as witnesses at the time of submission of the chargesheet, therefore, trial will take considerable long time to conclude, therefore for indefinite period, the account of the petitioner may not be freezed as it would adversely affect his business transaction. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may be allowed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/14197/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

7. On the other hand, learned APP has objected to the present petition and submitted that during the course of investigation, when the documents were collected, the disputed entries were found, therefore, the account of the petitioner has been freezed and when the petitioner had applied for de-freezing of the account before the court of learned Magistrate, it was partly allowed directing to maintain the account with disputed entry, which may not be interfered with. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may be rejected.

8. Having considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and having considered the documents produced on record, if the facts of the present case are examined, in that event, it is found out that because of registration of the FIR, the investigation was put into motion and during the course of investigation, when the accounts of the accused are verified, some entries were found including the entry with regard to the transaction made by the petitioner with the accused, as a result of which, only on the ground of suspicion of having involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime, the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed, however when the interrogation of the petitioner was done, the petitioner has satisfactory explained those entry by stating that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/14197/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

as the petitioner was in need of money for his business purpose, the amount was borrowed, however subsequently, the said amount has already been repaid with interest, copies of those statements are produced on record. However as the concerned Investigating Officer has not considered the request of the petitioner for de-freezing of the account, the petitioner approached the court of learned Magistrate, who modified by the said direction of freezing of the account by ordering to de-freeze the account of the petitioner but entry of Rs.94,00,000/- only, is to be remained freeze till further order and the said order is assailed before this Court by filing present petition contending inter alia that there is no direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner the commission of crime and the petitioner is not shown as accused in the said offence, therefore, the account of the petitioner may be de-freezed.

9. It is an admitted position of fact that just because of the transaction between the petitioner and the accused, the account of the petitioner has been freezed but the said transaction (entry) has been properly explained by the petitioner by producing the statements of the bank, which clearly goes on to show that the petitioner had borrowed the amount from the accused for his business purpose, which was repaid subsequently. Therefore prima facie, I am of the considered

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/14197/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

opinion that there is no directly or indirect involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime and the action taken by the authority of freezing the account of the petitioner is without any basis and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The action taken by the authority concerned of freezing the bank Account No.05491000010093 of the petitiioner maintained with HDFC Bank, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru is quashed and set aside. The attachment is ordered to be lifted and the petitioner is permitted to operate his bank account. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam