[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Gurjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 January, 2026
2026:UHC:106
Judgment Reserved on: 12.12.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 03.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.415 of 2024
Gurjeet Singh ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
Mr. Bhaskar Ch. Joshi, learned AGA, for State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present criminal revision arises out of FIR No. 32 of
2017 registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh
Nagar, under Sections 167, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and
120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2. The allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against
certain landowners and public officials, including revenue
authorities and officers connected with land acquisition, alleging
that agricultural land was falsely shown as non-agricultural by
procuring back-dated orders under Section 143 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, resulting in payment
of excessive compensation.
3. The Revisionist, Gurjeet Singh, is the son of one of the
landowners, namely Jarnail Singh. It is not disputed that the
1
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
Revisionist is not named as an accused in the FIR and has not been
charge-sheeted in the said case. Several charge-sheets have,
however, been filed from time to time against other accused
persons.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
issued a communication dated 12.07.2018 to the State Bank of India,
Gadarpur Branch, requesting freezing of bank account No.
11233606345, maintained in the name of the Revisionist. The stated
basis for such freezing was that the compensation amount allegedly
disbursed to the landowner was deposited in the said account.
5. Pursuant to the said communication, the bank account of
the Revisionist was frozen in the year 2018. The account has
continued to remain frozen since then, thereby restraining the
Revisionist from operating the account for several years.
6. The Revisionist asserts that the bank account has no nexus
with the alleged offence and that the freezing was carried out
without following the mandatory requirement under sub-section
(3) of Section 102 CrPC, namely, reporting of seizure of property to
the concerned Magistrate forthwith.
7. After completion of the investigation and filing of charge-
sheets against other accused, the Revisionist moved an application
under Sections 451, 457 and 102 CrPC before the court of the
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, seeking unfreezing of his bank account.
The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 05 of
2024.
2
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
8. The Investigating Officer filed an objection/report to the
said application, wherein it was not disputed that the freezing of
the account had not been reported to the Magistrate. The objection
proceeded on the premise that the amount deposited in the account
represented proceeds of crime.
9. By order dated 22.04.2024, the learned Special Judge
rejected the application for unfreezing, holding that since the
compensation amount alleged to be illegally obtained was
deposited in the account of the Revisionist, and as the trial was
pending, it would not be in the interest of justice to defreeze the
account.
10. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revisionist has preferred
the present criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
11. Learned counsel for the Revisionist assailed the impugned
order with considerable emphasis and submitted that the order
suffers from illegality, material irregularity and improper exercise
of jurisdiction. It was contended that the learned court below failed
to appreciate the limited scope and object of freezing of property
under Section 102 CrPC.
12. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the
Revisionist is not an accused in the FIR and has not been charge-
sheeted despite a prolonged investigation. It was argued that
freezing the bank account of a person who is not facing trial, and
that too for an indefinite period, amounts to imposing a punitive
restriction without adjudication.
13. It was contended that a bank account constitutes
"property" within the meaning of Section 102 CrPC and that
3
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
freezing of such an account amounts to seizure. Learned counsel
argued that sub-section (3) of Section 102 CrPC casts a mandatory
duty upon the Investigating Officer to report the seizure forthwith
to the jurisdictional Magistrate, so as to enable judicial scrutiny
over the investigative action.
14. Emphasis was laid on the fact that in the present case, the
Investigating Officer admittedly failed to report the freezing of the
bank account to the Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that
such non-compliance with a mandatory statutory requirement
vitiates the freezing itself and renders the continued restraint
legally unsustainable.
15. Learned counsel for the Revisionist further submitted that
the bank account has remained frozen since the year 2018, thereby
depriving the Revisionist of access to his own funds for more than
six years. It was argued that such prolonged freezing is grossly
disproportionate, particularly when the investigation has
substantially concluded, and the Revisionist has not been arrayed
as an accused.
16. It was contended that the learned court below erred in
proceeding on the assumption that the mere deposit of the
compensation amount in the account of the Revisionist
automatically renders the account liable to indefinite freezing.
According to learned counsel, the prosecution has not
demonstrated any adjudicatory finding declaring the compensation
amount to be illegal or directing its recovery.
17. Learned counsel for the Revisionist further argued that the
compensation award forming the basis of the prosecution case has
4
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
not been set aside by any competent forum. In the absence of any
such determination, mere suspicion or allegation cannot justify
continued deprivation of property.
18. It was also submitted that the learned court below failed to
consider the constitutional implications of prolonged freezing of a
bank account, which directly impinges upon the right to livelihood
under Article 21 and the right.
19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
supported the impugned order and submitted that the freezing of
the bank account constituted a legitimate investigative measure. It
was argued that the funds lying in the said account are suspected
to represent proceeds of crime, and that unfreezing the account at
this stage may result in dissipation of the alleged amount.
20. Learned State counsel contended that the pendency of the
trial arising out of FIR No. 32 of 2017 justifies continuation of the
freezing order, as the prosecution's interest in securing the alleged
proceeds of crime outweighs the inconvenience caused to the
Revisionist.
21. It was further argued that the learned court below has
exercised its discretion judiciously and that no interference is
warranted in revisional jurisdiction.
22. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the
records.
22. At the threshold, it is necessary to note that the Revisionist
is not an accused in FIR No. 32 of 2017 and has not been charge-
sheeted despite the passage of several years and the filing of
5
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
multiple charge-sheets against other accused persons. The State
does not dispute this factual position. The continued freezing of the
bank account of the Revisionist, therefore, operates against a
person who is not facing trial and against whom no charge has
been framed.
23. A bank account undoubtedly constitutes "property" within
the meaning of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Freezing of a bank account, which effectively restrains the account
holder from accessing or operating the account, amounts to seizure
of property. Such a seizure is a serious intrusion into proprietary
and economic rights and cannot be treated as a routine or
innocuous investigative measure.
24. Section 102 CrPC confers power upon the police to seize
property suspected to be connected with an offence. However, this
power is not unbridled. Sub-section (3) of Section 102 mandates
that every seizure of property shall be reported forthwith to the
Magistrate having jurisdiction. The legislative intent behind this
provision is clear, namely, to subject investigative seizure to
immediate judicial oversight so as to prevent abuse of power and to
protect individuals from arbitrary deprivation of property.
25. In the present case, the record unmistakably reveals that
the Investigating Officer failed to report the freezing of the bank
account of the Revisionist to the jurisdictional Magistrate. This
lapse has not been denied by the prosecution. The objection filed by
the Investigating Officer before the court below also does not assert
compliance with Section 102(3) CrPC. Such non-compliance cannot
be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity.
6
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
26. The learned court below, while rejecting the application for
unfreezing, has completely overlooked the legal consequence of
non-compliance with Section 102(3) CrPC. The impugned order
proceeds as though the mere allegation that the amount deposited
in the account represents proceeds of crime is sufficient to sustain
indefinite freezing, irrespective of statutory safeguards. This
approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, reflects a failure
to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with settled principles of law.
27. The object of freezing of property during investigation is to
preserve alleged proceeds of crime and to prevent their dissipation
pending adjudication. This object cannot be stretched to justify
prolonged deprivation of property without adherence to statutory
requirements and without periodic judicial scrutiny. Criminal
investigation is not meant to operate as a substitute for
punishment, nor can it be permitted to impose civil death upon
property by executive fiat.
28. The freezing of the Revisionist's bank account has
continued since the year 2018. For more than six years, the
Revisionist has been deprived of access to his own funds. Such
prolonged restraint, particularly when the account holder is not an
accused and when the investigation has substantially progressed, is
manifestly disproportionate. Proportionality is an inherent facet of
fairness in the criminal process and must inform the exercise of
investigative powers.
29. The learned court below has proceeded on the premise that
since the compensation amount was deposited in the account of the
Revisionist, the account must remain frozen till the culmination of
7
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
the trial. This reasoning conflates suspicion with adjudication. The
compensation award forming the basis of the prosecution case has
not been set aside by any competent forum. No final determination
exists declaring the amount deposited in the account to be illegal or
liable for recovery.
30. Mere pendency of a criminal trial cannot, by itself, justify
indefinite freezing of property belonging to a person who is not
facing trial. To accept such a proposition would be to confer upon
the investigating agency an unchecked power to restrain property
for years, without trial, without conviction, and without judicial
oversight, a result wholly incompatible with the rule of law.
31. The contention of the State that unfreezing of the account
may result in dissipation of alleged proceeds of crime is not
without relevance. However, such concern cannot override
statutory mandates and constitutional protections. The law
provides mechanisms to secure alleged proceeds of crime through
conditional orders, security, or other safeguards. An all-or-nothing
approach is neither required nor justified.
32. This Court is conscious of the need to balance the interests
of the prosecution with the rights of individuals. Such a balance can
be achieved by permitting unfreezing of the bank account, subject
to appropriate conditions to secure the alleged amount. The
Revisionist has expressly undertaken to abide by any reasonable
condition, including furnishing security, to protect the interest of
the prosecution.
33. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order
dated 22.04.2024 suffers from material irregularity, ignores
8
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
mandatory statutory provisions, and results in manifest injustice.
The learned court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in
it properly and has, therefore, committed an error warranting
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
34. This Court is, accordingly, satisfied that the continuation of
freezing of the bank account of the Revisionist, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, is legally unsustainable and that
the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand.
ORDER
The criminal revision is allowed.
The order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Misc. Application No. 05 of
2024, is hereby set aside.
The bank account bearing No. 11233606345, maintained
with the State Bank of India, Gadarpur Branch, in the name of the
Revisionist, shall be unfrozen forthwith, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The Revisionist shall furnish adequate security, to the
satisfaction of the trial court, equivalent to the amount
alleged by the prosecution to be connected with FIR No. 32
of 2017.
(ii) The Revisionist shall not alienate, withdraw, or otherwise
deal with the secured amount except in accordance with
the terms permitted by the trial court.
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:106
The court concerned shall ensure expeditious compliance
of this order.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
SB
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2024, Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand-
Ashish Naithani J.
