BEFORE THE 19th ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
At: Vadodara
(Shri M.M.Qureshi)
Criminal Misc.Application No.8715/2024
Applicant
Sandeep Ramesh Tolke
Residing at:
B/179,The Gold City Riality,
Near national Highway, Tarsali bypass,
Vadodara.
B/179,The Gold City Riality,
Near national Highway, Tarsali bypass,
Vadodara.
Vs.
Opponent
The State of Gujarat
Subject : Application under Section 497 and
503 of the BNSS.
Appearance:
============================================================
● Ld. Advocate Mr.Z.I.Vohra for the applicant
● Ld. P.P Mr.M.K.Dave for the opponent.
============================================================
:: JUDGEMENT ::
1. The applicant has filed the present application under Sections
497 and 503 of BNSS to release the muddamal amount of
Rs.1,93,400/-.
2/17
2. The brief fact of the application is that the applicant is a
victim of cybercrime, and without his consent,the amount of
Rs.3,51,715/- was debited from his account; therefore, he
logged a complaint on the cybercrime portal vide
acknowledgement/ Ticket/ Inverd No.1065/2024 and informed
about the offences and provided his bank details to the
investigation officer. Upon receiving the complaint, the
investigation officer frozen the bank account
No.923010067625687,IFSC:UTIB0001850,AXIS BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.1,400/- and the bank account
No.20100028375300,IFSC:BDBL0001962,BANDHAN BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.1,14,000/- and the bank account
No.110185855412,IFSC:CNRB0000733,CANARA BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.55,000/- and the bank account
No.50100380865290,IFSC:HDFC0001966,HDFC BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.13,000/- and the bank account
No.1548325013,IFSC:KKBK0007508,KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK in which
the total amount of Rs.8,000/- and the bank account
No.0947000100212248,IFSC:PUNB0094700,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK in
which the total amount of Rs.2,000/- was frozen, and the
applicant claimed the amount of Rs.1,93,400/- Therefore, he
claimed Rs.1,93,400/- amount of fraud, and on the other side,
no one claimed the frozen account.
3. The learned advocate representing the applicant argued that
the applicant fell victim to cybercrime, and the investigating
officer seized the bank account to which the victim’s funds
were transferred. Therefore, the applicant should receive the
transferred funds. Further, no other person has claimed the
amount paid till date. If the principal amount remains in the
bank for a long time, the applicant may face a financial
crisis and suffer a lot of inconvenience due to not being able
to use the principal money. So the applicant has demanded to
3/17
return the amount in question to them. Additionally, he stated
that concerned bank has no connection to the matter and is not
the trustee of the said amount. According to the police
report, no objections were raised regarding the frozen
account, and the investigating officer submitted favourable
remarks in support of the application. On the other hand, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested the court issue
an appropriate order.
4. A police opinion has been sought in this case. According to
the opinion of the investigation officer, the police have
seized the amount in question based on the complaint of the
applicant. The account holder or any other person has not
raised any objection regarding the seizure of the bank account
containing the amount, stating that the seized account is
found to be fake, and has given an opinion to hand over the
claimed amount to the applicant.
5. The current complaint was registered on the national portal
prior to July 1, 2024. Consequently, the investigation of this
case was conducted under the old law, i.e., the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Subsequently, the present
application was registered after July 1, 2024; thus, the
investigation was carried out under the old law, while the
present application was submitted under the new law. Although
the investigation processes remain the same under both the old
and new laws, there are changes in the section numbers.
Therefore, this application will be decided under the new law.
6. Considering the opinion of the investigating officer and the
documents submitted, it is contained that the money of the
victim of cybercrime is transferred online, and the money of
the victim of cybercrime is immediately stopped by the
cybercrime police station to stop such money and prevent the
4/17
crime. At the same time, a notice is given under sections 91
and 102 of the CrPC to freeze the money in the suspicious bank
account of the citizen and to inform the bank if the money has
been transferred from there. Banks freeze these suspiciously
received funds on a notice basis. The present applicant
informed the cybercrime police about the cybercrime committed.
Based on the application, the money was transferred from the
above account of the applicant by the Cyber Crime Police
Station to different bank accounts of the suspect bank, whose
bank account has been frozen as per Section 102 CrPC. Further,
the suspected counterparty of the applicant’s bank account has
been frozen. However, it has not been reported to the police
till date, so this account number has been found to be fake,
and after seizing the account, no objection has been raised
before the police regarding the seizure of the account by the
owner or any other person, so the money should be returned to
the applicant.
7. After hearing the learned advocates for both parties, it is
important to note that the suspicious bank account has indeed
been frozen by the investigating officer using powers
conferred by Section 106 of the BNSS. the investigating
officer has not intimated and did not adhere to the provisions
of Section 106 of the BNSS. while freezing the bank account.
To comprehend this matter, it is necessary to refer to Section
106 of the BNSS., which states as follows:
“106.
(1) Any police officer may seize any property which
may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which
may be found under circumstances which create suspicion
of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in
charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the
seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1)
shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate
having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such
5/17
that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court,
or where there is difficulty in securing proper
accommodation for the custody of such property, or where
the continued retention of the property in police custody
may not be considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person
on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the
property before the Court as and when required and to
give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the
disposal of the same: Provided that where the property
seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and
natural decay and if the person entitled to the
possession of such property is unknown or absent and the
value of such property is less than five hundred rupees,
it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of
the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of
sections 503 and 504 shall, as nearly as may be
practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.”
8. Sub-section (3) of Section 106 of the BNSS. explicitly states
that a police officer must report the seizure of property to
the Court with jurisdiction. The use of the terms “every
police officer” and “shall” in this subsection makes this
requirement mandatory. It is imperative that the Magistrate
with jurisdiction be informed, as they are responsible for the
seized property under the investigating officer’s purview. The
investigating officer cannot exercise authority under Section
106 of the BNSS. without notifying the relevant magistrate.
Failure to adhere to sub-section (3) of Section 106 of the
BNSS. by the police officer constitutes a grave error on their
part. Such action cannot be considered a lawful seizure as
outlined in Section 106 of the BNSS. The unilateral seizure of
property by a police officer without informing the magistrate
is arbitrary and essentially void. The report of the police
officer is silent about notifying this court of the action
under 106 of the BNSS. clearly indicates that after freezing
the suspicious bank account under Section 106 of the BNSS.,
the investigating officer failed to inform the relevant
Magistrate.
9. For adjudicating the issue at hand, the definition of the
words inquiry and investigation as provided in Section 2(1)(k)
and (l) of BNSS are reproduced below :
1. As per Sec. (k) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a
trial, conducted under this Sanhita by a Magistrate or
Court;
2. While under S.(l) “investigation” includes all the
proceedings under this Sanhita for the collection of
6/17
evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person
(other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate
in this behalf.
10. What is investigation – THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
(SECOND) SANHITA, 2023 provides the procedure for
investigation and the report of the Police Officer on
completion of investigation. Sec. 157 Cr.P.C states as
follows:-
“176. (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an
officer in charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered under section 175 to investigate, he shall
forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a
police report and shall proceed in person, or shall
depute one of his subordinate officers not being below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or
special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to
the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of
the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the
discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that—
(a) when information as to the commission of any such
offence is given against any person by name and the case
is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a
police station need not proceed in person or depute a
subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police
station that there is no sufficient ground for entering
on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case:
Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape,
the recording of statement of the victim shall be
conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place
of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police
officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or
near relatives or social worker of the locality and such
statement may also be recorded through any audio-video
electronic means including mobile phone.
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b)
of the first proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in
charge of the police station shall state in his report
the reasons for not fully complying with the requirements
of that sub-section by him, and, forward the daily diary
report fortnightly to the Magistrate and in the case
mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer
7/17
shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in
such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the
State Government.
(3) On receipt of every information relating to the
commission of an offence which is made punishable for
seven years or more, the officer in charge of a police
station shall, from such date, as may be notified within
a period of five years by the State Government in this
regard, cause the forensic expert to visit the crime
scene to collect forensic evidence in the offence and
also cause videography of the process on mobile phone or
any other electronic device:
Provided that where forensic facility is not available in
respect of any such offence, the State Government shall,
until the facility in respect of that matter is developed
or made in the State, notify the utilisation of such
facility of any other State.”
11. In view of the S. 2(1)(k) and (l), 176 of BNSS,in the
foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that investigation is an
activity which is different from an inquiry or trial. As the
stage of inquiry commences from the date of filing of the
charge-sheet, the period prior to filing of the charge-sheet
would have to be considered to be the stage of investigation.
12. At this stage, it is required to look into Section 503 of
the BNSS. Therefore, it is reproduced here.
“503. (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police
officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions
of this Sanhita, and such property is not produced before
a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the
Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit
respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery
of such property to the person entitled to the possession
thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained,
respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate
may order the property to be delivered to him on such
conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if
such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and
shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the
articles of which such property consists, and requiring
8/17
any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before
him and establish his claim within six months from the
date of such proclamation.”
13. As per Section 503(1) of the BNSS, where seizure of
property by any police officer is reported to the Magistrate
and such property has not been produced before the court
during the investigation, the Magistrate has the power to make
such an order for disposal or possession of such property as
he thinks fit.
14. In the case of Hansaben W/o Sunilbhai Gulabsinh Padhiyar
Versus State Of Gujarat the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat
observed as under: “15. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy’s case
(supra), the police officer concerned would definitely
have the power to order ‘seizure’ of the bank account of
an accused or of his relatives, as the same is ‘property’
within the meaning of section 102 of the Code. It is to
be noted that seizure and production in Court of any
property will have a two-fold effect. Seizure may be
necessary in order to preserve the property, for the
purpose of enabling the Court, to pass suitable orders
under section 452 or 453 of the Code, as the case may be,
at the conclusion of trial; and production of the
property may be necessary as evidence of the commission
of the crime. This two-fold object of investing the
police with the powers of seizure, have to be borne in
mind while setting this legal issue.”
15. I may also refer to the decision of the Gujarat High
Court in the case of Paresha G. Shah v/s. State of Gujarat, in
Special Criminal Application No.150 of 2015 decided on
15.06.2015 , whereby it is observed as under :-
“Like any other property a bank account is freezable.
Freezing the account is an act in investigation. Like any
other act, it commands and behoves secrecy to preserve
the evidence. It does not deprive any person of his
liberty or his property. It is necessarily temporary i.e.
till the adequate material is collected. It clothes the
authority with the power to preserve a property suspected
to have been used in the commission of the offence in any
manner. The property, therefore, requires to be protected
from dissemination, depletion or destruction by any mode.
Consequently, under the guise of being given information
about the said action, no accused, not even a third
9/17
party, can overreach the law under the umbrella of a
sublime provision meant to protect the innocent and
preserve his property. It is also not necessary at all
that a person must be told that his bank account, which
is suspected of having been used in the commission of an
offence by himself or even by another, is being frozen to
allow him to have it closed or to have its proceeds
withdrawn or transferred upon such notice.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) has expressed its
view, directing the procedure for handing over currency notes,
which is as follows:
Valuable Articles and Currency Notes
11. With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or
sliver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones,
it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles
in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our
view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such
cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as
contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.
12. For this purposes, if material on record indicates that
such articles belong to the complainant at whose house
theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized
articles be handed over to the complainant after:-
(1) preparing detailed proper panchanama of such articles:
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such
articles would be produced if required at the time of trial;
and (3) after taking proper security.”
17. The power under Section 503 of BNSS. should be exercised
expeditiously and judiciously, which clearly empowers the
Court to order for proper custody of the articles or property
pending the conclusion of the trial, as the owner of the
article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or
its misappropriation. The court or police would not be
required to keep the article in safe custody, and if the A
proper punchnama is prepared before handing over possession of
the article, that can be used as evidence instead of its
production before the court during the trial.
18. Based on the factual evidence and the legal principles
outlined by the authorities, it appears that the investigating
officer did not adhere to the provisions of Section 106(3).
10/17
Additionally, the lack of any claim from the account holder
regarding the frozen funds further suggests potential
involvement in suspicious activity. However, the applicant
appearing before this court, claiming to be a victim of
cybercrime, seeks the return of the fraudulently transferred
amount held within the frozen account.
19. At this juncture, observation made by the Division Bench
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Swaran
Sabharwal v/s. Commissioner of Police [(1988) Cr.L.J. 241],
which reads as under :-
“in to the case of seizure of a bank account, the police
officer should have done two things : he should have
informed the concerned magistrate forthwith regarding the
prohibitory order. He should have also give notice of the
seizure to the petitioner and followed her to operate the
bank account subject to her executing a bond undertaking
to produce the amounts in court as and when required or
to hold them subject to such orders as the court may make
regarding the disposal of the same. This was not done.
Even a copy of the prohibitory orders was not given to
the petitioner. The police did not seek the directions of
the Magistrate trying the offence. Not only that, when
the petitioner herself approached the Magistrate who was
trying the petitioner’s husband under the official
Secrets Act, her request to be allowed to operate the
account was opposed by the police contending that the
bank account was not “case property” and that the
petitioner’s remedies lay elsewhere than in the court of
the Magistrate. The Magistrate accepted the plea of the
police and dismissed the application of the petitioner
and directed to seek remedy elsewhere before the
appropriate authority. The petitioner having lost before
the Magistrate, had no other recourse except to file a
writ petition praying for the setting aside of the
prohibitory order.”
20. In the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Hyderabad
Vs. State & Another, 1981 0 CRLJ 1529, the Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court has held that the Criminal Court had the
power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for delivery or disposal of a
property prior to filing of a charge-sheet. However, it added
11/17
a Caveat as follows:
“Even if I am wrong, I could still direct the delivery of
the property to the petitioner company under Section 482
Criminal P.C. in order to secure the ends of justice.”
21. In the case of Court of its own motion Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and other, W.P(PIL) No.6086 of 2023, order No.5/
Date:18th December 2023, the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has
Observed and held during the public interest litigation as
below :
para 16 ,There can be no measure of doubt that there is
every likelihood of the defrauded money being spent,
consumed,transferred,gifted, layered etc. in several ways
and, therefore, the Defrauded money shall fall under the
expression “if the property is subject to speedy and natural
decay”. Therefore, in every case where a First Information
Report has been lodged, the concerned Magistrate can
exercise the powers under section 451 for release of the
defrauded money to the victim on submission of a report and
upon filing an indemnity bond in the Court by the victim.
Furthermore, there may be a case in which a person or
account may not be directly involved in the crime.
Notwithstanding that, the police may issue direction(s) and
the concerned bank can take action threon for freezing of
such account and therefore the concerned Magistrate shall
take note of this aspect of the matter and pass appropriate
order for release of such amount in favour of the victim of
a cyber fraud.Under section 457, a Magistrate may issue a
direction for release of the property to the person entitled
to the possession thereof during an inquiry of trial even
though the property is not produced in the Court.
12/17
22. In cases of cybercrime where funds are transferred
through platforms like Google Pay, Paytm, or any other wallet,
or via bank transfers such as IMPS or NEFT, an important
question arises: are the banks or the transfer platform
providers necessary parties to the proceedings, and should
they be heard before any order is passed? Particularly when
payments are made through the Unified Payment Interface (UPI)
platform, owned by the National Payments Corporation of India
(NPCI), it’s crucial to consider the involvement of these
platforms.
23. The UPI platforms, like PhonePe or G Pay, are not
directly owned by banks but rather by NPCI. Legally, the
applicant is viewed as a third-party application provider by
NPCI, or a system provider. Essentially, regardless of the
varying terminologies used in different laws, entities
providing UPI services—be they banks or platforms like PhonePe
or G Pay—hold the status of intermediaries, as defined under
the Information Technology Act, 2000.Section 79 of the IT Act
offers protection to intermediaries to the extent provided
under its provisions. Section 79 of the IT Act reads as
follows:
“79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain
cases.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force but subject to the provisions of subsections
(2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable
for any third party information, data, or communication link
made available or hosted by him.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if–
(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing
access to a communication system over which information made
available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily
stored or hosted; or
13/17
(b) the intermediary does not–
(i) initiate the transmission,
(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and
(iii) select or modify the information contained in the
transmission;
(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while
discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such
other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in
this behalf.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if–
(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or
induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the
commission of the unlawful act;
(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by
the appropriate Government or its agency that any
information, data or communication link residing in or
connected to a computer resource controlled by the
intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the
intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access
to that material on that resource without vitiating the
evidence in any manner.
Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, the
expression “third party information” means any information
dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an
intermediary.”
24. Section 79 of the IT Act stipulates that regardless of
any other law, an intermediary cannot be held liable for any
information, data, or communication link provided or hosted by
them on behalf of a third party. This provision is applied
according to its own criteria. An intermediary is not held
responsible if they haven’t initiated the transmission, chosen
the recipient of the transmission, or altered any information
within it. The term “third party information” under Section 79
refers to information handled by the intermediary in their
14/17
capacity as an intermediary.
25. It’s important to note a significant factor: neither the
bank nor the UPI platforms are the accused parties. However,
it’s crucial to recognize that freezing an account or placing
a lien on funds doesn’t necessitate someone being accused.
It’s often the money trail that raises suspicion and leads to
such actions. Therefore, there’s no requirement for bank or
UPI platforms to be heard, as Section 106 of the BNSS
empowers the investigating agency to direct the freezing of
accounts within its jurisdiction.
26. In situations where the identity of the suspect remains
unknown, Section 503 of the BNSS serves as a vital recourse
for the Criminal Court during the investigative phase. It
allows the court to intervene and order the release of seized
property when the police authorities fail to comply with the
provisions outlined in Section 106 of the BNSS. However, if
the police persist in retaining custody of the seized property
unlawfully, individuals find themselves devoid of any
effective remedies. Their only option is to seek relief
through the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. or
Article 226 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this presents
a formidable challenge, particularly for individuals residing
in remote areas or belonging to disadvantaged sections of
society. In such circumstances, the efficacy of Section 503 of
the BNSS. is called into question, as it becomes functionally
redundant. This highlights the urgent need for procedural
reforms aimed at ensuring equitable access to justice for all
individuals, regardless of their geographical location or
socio-economic background.
27. Considering the copies of bank statements submitted along
with the said application, the opinion expressed by the
investigating officer, and the documents, and statements
submitted by the bank, it is clear at this stage that the
15/17
money has been withdrawn from the account mentioned in the
application and transferred to the suspect bank account.
Moreover, considering the facts on record, no FIR has been
filed till date in the present case. It does not appear that
anyone has been arrested in connection with the incident or in
the present case, and even though such a long period of time
has passed since the incident, till date no one other than the
applicant has filed any application before this court
demanding the above amount. No one seems to have demanded this
money before, and the investigating officer has stated that
the bank account is fake, and after seizing the account, the
owner or any other person has not raised any objection before
them (police) about seizing the account. So the investigating
officer has given a clear opinion to return the money to the
applicant. According to the Investigating Officer’s opinion,
another investigating agency has also frozen and scrutinized
these accounts. Hence, prima facie, it appears that the bank
accounts in question are involved in fraudulent activities.
The Investigating Officer has invoked Section 106 of the
B.N.S.S. to freeze several bank accounts belonging to the
accused. These accounts have been independently frozen by
various agencies in different locations, as investigations
have uncovered their association with bank account numbers
implicated in fraudulent activities. Consequently, it is
crucial that the frozen amount be returned to the applicant,
as this action will serve to uphold justice in this matter.
The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to
possession of the money.
28. For the reasons stated above, the present application
seems fit to be allowed in the interest of justice; it is
ordered as follows.
:: ORDER ::
16/17
This application is hereby ALLOWED, subject to the
following conditions:
● Release of Seized Fund s: The Muddamal amount of Rs.1,93,400/-
seized by the Vadodara City cyber police in connection with
acknowledgement/ticket/inverd No.1065/2024 and the bank
account No.923010067625687,IFSC:UTIB0001850,AXIS BANK in which
the total amount of Rs.1,400/- and the bank account
No.20100028375300,IFSC:BDBL0001962,BANDHAN BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.1,14,000/- and the bank account
No.110185855412,IFSC:CNRB0000733,CANARA BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.55,000/- and the bank account
No.50100380865290,IFSC:HDFC0001966,HDFC BANK in which the
total amount of Rs.13,000/- and the bank account
No.1548325013,IFSC:KKBK0007508,KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK in which
the total amount of Rs.8,000/- and the bank account
No.0947000100212248,IFSC:PUNB0094700,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK in
which the total amount of Rs.2,000/-,are Frozen Amount ordered
released to the applicant,Sandeep Ramesh Tolke, as interim
custody pending final disposal of this case.
● Security and undertaking :
The applicant shall furnish, by way of security, a bond
amounting to the seized amount and also provide a surety of
equivalent value.
● The applicant shall further file an undertaking to produce the
aforementioned amount as and when directed by this court.
● The applicant shall appear before the I.O. as and when called
for and cooperate with the investigation..
Upon receiving the bond and surety, the police officer shall
immediately inform concerned Bank to comply with this order.
● Bank Instructions :
17/17
The police officer shall Inform Concerned Bank to comply with this
order and transfer the Rs.1,93,400/- to the applicant’s SBI Bank
account No.00000031680010161,IFSC:SBIN0001141 within 10 days of
receiving the order.
Recognizing that instances may arise where the available funds in
the frozen account referenced in this order are less than the
total amount specified for release. In such cases, the
concerned bank is hereby directed to transfer the available
balance in the frozen account to the applicant’s account, and
the bank may not request a revised order from the court solely
due to insufficient funds in the frozen account.
● Compliance Report: The Concerned bank shall submit a
compliance report to this court and the police station within
10 days of transferring the funds.
● Communication of Order :
29. The Registry shall communicate this order to the
concerned police station for immediate compliance.
Signed and Pronounced in the open court today,December 18, 2024,
at Vadodara.
(Mohammed Zaid M. Qureshi.)
19th Additional C.J.M. Vadodara.
Code No.GJ01472.