Disposed¶18

Upendra Nath Pandey v. State of Up

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2026A227/13415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank account freeze/defreeze; Article 227 petition; CJM Chitrakoot order dated 23.4.2024; Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2025 dismissed 9.7.2024; FIR Case Crime No. 426 of 2023, PS Karwi, District Chitrakoot; sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 411 IPC; investigation pending; parity with similarly placed co-accused whose accounts were defreezed; liberty to file fresh defreezing application; Upendra Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.; Anil Kumar-X, J.; petition disposed of on March 25, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for defreezing his bank account before the concerned court, which is to properly consider each and every objection raised by him before passing any order. ¶18

Upendra Nath Pandey Vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the trial court and the revisional court dismissing the petitioner's application for defreezing his bank account are illegal and liable to be set aside, given the contention that investigation was already complete. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application for defreezing his bank account; if such an application is moved, the concerned court will properly consider each and every objection raised by the petitioner before passing any order.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Court did not come to any conclusion on whether the defreezing application was filed before or after the charge-sheet, and presumed that it was filed before the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet.¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Anil Kumar-X, J.) disposed of a petition under Article 227 filed by Upendra Nath Pandey challenging (i) the order dated 23.4.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot and (ii) the order dated 9.7.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2025, by which his applications for defreezing his bank account were rejected on the ground that investigation was pending. The account had been frozen by the police after registration of FIR Case Crime No. 426 of 2023 under sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Karwi, District Chitrakoot. Unable to conclude whether the defreezing application pre-dated or post-dated the charge-sheet, the Court presumed it was filed before the supplementary charge-sheet but declined to interfere, instead granting liberty to file a fresh application and directing the concerned court to properly consider each and every objection raised by the petitioner before passing any order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13415 of 2024

¶3

Upendra Nath Pandey

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P.	.....Respon
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kamlesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 89

¶9

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents are present.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank account of the petitioner was ceased by the police on account of registration of first information report in Case Crime No.426 of 2023 under section 406, 419, 420,467, 468, 471, 379, 411 I.P.C. Police Station- Karwi, District Chitrakoot. Learned counsel submitted that application moved by the petitioner for defreezing the bank account was erroneously dismissed by the trial court, vide its order dated 23.4.2024, by holding that investigation in the case is still pending. He further submitted that investigation in the case was already completed before his application for defreezing the bank account was filed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.4.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.28 of 2025 (Upendra Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P.) which was also dismissed by the revisional court on 9.7.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both courts have wrongly held that investigation of the case is still continuing. The bank account of other similarly placed co-accused have already been defreezed by orders of the Magistrate Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court dismissing the application of the petitioner for defreezing the bank account are illegal and are liable to be set aside.

¶13

A227 No. 13415 of 2024

¶14

¶15

Learned AGA submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded his finding to the effect that the matter is still under investigation. He further submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that amount of money in his bank account was gained by committing fraud. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and they do not require any interference.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

This Court has not come to any conclusion that whether the application for defreezing the bank account was filed before the filing of the chargesheet or it was filed after the charge-sheet was submitted. This Court presumes that the application of the petitioner for defreezing the bank account was filed before the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application for defreezing his bank account. If any such application is moved by the petitioner before the concerned court, the concerned court will properly consider each and every objection raised by the petitioner before passing any order.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶19

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶20

March 25, 2026 SK

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Upendra Nath Pandey v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Nath Pandey v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakishun and Another vs State of U.P.and Another

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunaina Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Neeraj @ Naina and 3 Others Vs State of Utter Pradesh and Another

Chandan Sah vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rampyare Singh Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others