Dismissed

Sandeep Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2019A482/9781/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the lifting of seizure on the applicant's bank account. The court observed that the required payment of Rs.28,97,000/- was made, satisfying the bail conditions. Despite this, the seizure remained. The court directed the bank manager to lift the seizure immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank Manager concerned to lift the seizure and allow the applicant to operate the bank account immediately.

Sandeep Garg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9781 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Garg Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Pakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of this application.

¶6

Claim is that in this case it so happened that on the application given by the Investigating Officer of this case, the bank account held by the company of the applicant- Sandeep Gargwas freezed. On being approached for bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.23398 of 2018, a conditional bail order was passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26.06.2018 in the aforesaid bail application, copy whereof is Annexure No.10, whereby the applicant agreed to pay the entire outstanding amount due to opposite party no.2 along with the agreed rate of interest and on payment being made, then seizure of the Bank account may be lifted, as per the submission the applicant was released on bail. Then as per claim made before this Court by Sri Manish Tiwary, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Tripathi claims that now it so happened that Rs.28,97,000/-

¶7

were paid from the freezed account to the informant side but the seizure of the bank account was not lifted and this has caused great annoyance.

¶8

Consequently, this application has been moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

I have gone through the bail order Annexure No.10, wherein the same mandate has been expressed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26.06.2018. Now Rs.28,97,000/- have been given to the informant side, this fact has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in the open Court, it means the money, as was opted to be given to the informant side by the applicant, has been given to the applicant to the tune of Rs.28,97,000/-. Now the applicant submits that in case any outstanding due remains to be paid then all legal payment shall be made, if the same is brought to the notice of the applicant, however, applicant claims for the time being that he has discharged his liabilities.

¶10

In view of aforesaid admitted position, it is strange that the bank account which had been seized and the same seizure has not been lifted. Now, this Court directs the Bank Manager concerned to lift the seizure and the applicant may operate the bank account in case of any defiance both Investigating Officer and the concerned Bank Manager shall be liable to criminal contempt of order of this Court.

¶11

A copy of this order may also be handed over

¶12

by the applicant to the Bank Manager for lifting the seizure immediately on the production of certified copy, if there is no other legal impediment of any Court.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is finally disposed off .

¶14

Order Date :- 22.5.2019

¶15

Raj

Sandeep Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajal Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Swarnkar Vs Union of India and Another

Narendra Vs State of U.P.

Mubarak Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandni @ Hina and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another