Jeewan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2000 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Jeewan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 March, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.501 of 2026
                                  Jeewan Singh                                              ............Petitioner
                                                            Vs.
                                  State of Uttarakhand and others                          ..........Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. B.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State.

3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

4. Pursuant to earlier order dated 27.02.2026 the earlier Investigating Officer-Mr. Sumer Singh, Sub- Inspector, respondent no.3, is present before this Court.

5. This Court asked respondent no.3 as to under which provision of law account of the petitioner maintained in respondent no.4-Bank has been freeze by him.

6. Investigating Officer-Mr. Sumer Singh, Sub- Inspector, respondent no.3, made a statement that the power to seize an account is under Section 106 of the B.N.S.S. 2023.

7. The power to freeze the account, which shows transaction of sale and purchase of the contraband, is prescribed under Section 106 of B.N.S.S. 2023, but he fairly submits that such seizure shall be forthwith sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

8. Investigating Officer-Mr. Sumer Singh, Sub- Inspector, respondent no.3, made a statement before this Court that he has invoked wrong provision of Section 94 of B.N.S.S. and notice has been issued to the respondent no.4-Bank to freeze petitioner's account as maintained in

the respondent no.4-State Bank of India. Mentioning of wrong provision in the order would not make serious difference, but the lapse in not sending the report of the seizure to the Magistrate concerned is quite illegal. This lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer-Mr. Sumer Singh, Sub-Inspector, respondent no.3, is very serious and against the express provisions of law.

9. Consequently a mandamus is issued to the respondent no.4-Bank to immediately unfreeze the Account Nos.39648949409, 20291470847 and 43952770159 of the petitioner in the respondent no.4- Bank, forthwith.

10. However for the lapse committed on the part of Investigating Officer-Mr. Sumer Singh, Sub-Inspector, respondent no.3, he shall file an affidavit asking an conditional apology within a week.

11. List this case on 25.03.2026, on which date Investigating Officer-Mr. Sumer Singh, Sub-Inspector, respondent no.3, shall remain present before this Court.

12. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.03.2026 SK