Allowed

B. Jyothi Kiran v. CBI Acb

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023WP/858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the freezing of the petitioner's bank account during an investigation. The petitioner argued the freeze was illegal and arbitrary. While the petitioner's father was previously acquitted in a related case where this account was not mentioned, the court observed that freezing the account no longer served any purpose. The court directed the bank to d

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent Bank was directed to forthwith defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank Account bearing A/c.013210011006276.

B. Jyothi Kiran Vs CBI Acb — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 858 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Jyothi Kiran, S/o B.Satyarao, aged 46 years, Housewile, PUo. 2-2647177|G.12, SBI Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-13.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

CBI ACB, rep. by its inspector of Police, Kendriya Sadan, sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad,

¶13

Union Bank of lndia (formerly Andhra Bank), Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager, Baghamberpet Branch, Hyderabad

¶14

..RESPONDENTS ,Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the action on part of the respondents in freezing the petitioneds Savings Bank A/c bearing No. 013210011006276 lying in the 2nd respondent's Bank as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and violative of Art. 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent Bank to defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank A/c bearing No. 0132'1001 1006276 lying in the 2nd respondent's Bank.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent Bank to allow the petitioner to operate his Savings Bank A/c bearing No. 01321001 1006276 lying in the 2nd respondent's Bank pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GANDURI NAGESWARA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. S.ANANTHI, SPL PP FOR CBI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.VENKATA NARAYANA RAO,SC FOR UBI The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BL } SRI JUSTICE MT'II/IMINENI SUD TIEER T|UMAR IIRIT PETITION No.858 of2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Wri ,^:e -it1on is hled seeking a writ of V anda mus to declare the acti.^, tn the part of the responder ts i:t [r.ee;;ing the petitioner's Savin .1s Bank Account bearing A/c.()13210:) ll006276 lying with respo clent No.2-Bank, as arbitrary an<l i.lr:gal, and consequentll to direct respondent No.2-Bank to (l(.lreoze the petitioner's afor:s :icl account lying u,ith responderLt Nc,.2 larrk.

¶22

Ilear.c L:arned counsel for the petitiorer, Ms S.Ananthi, learned Special Pr b ic Prosecutor for CBI, appearing fo;. ,esJrondent No.I and Sr: A '^,nkata Nara5.ana Rao, learned Standirrg Counscl for rcspondent llo.2 R:rnk.

¶23

'lh<: 1 eritioner here in is son of Sri I).Saq a Rao, u.ho involved in a crin irral case uide C.C.No.3O of 2(rl3 ,r r thc flle of Principal Special ")udge fcrr CBI Cases, Hyc eral,rz rl zLnd in connection with 1. re said case, the bank Account of 1_[ c pe:itioner was frozen durinp tJte course of investigation in ]rimr ,,1o. RC l7 (All20l1 and ir: t rt said case, [he accused was con,rjcred bv the learned Special .l rc ge for C:BI by Jrrdgment, d,rted l.: .01 .20I g. Aggrieved by the s irl judgmcnt, the accused preferred r.n zLppeal in Crl.A.No.1216, of ,t^,18 before this Court and the sarre is 1tr:nding.

¶24

¶25

¶26

Leamed counscl for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted a letter to respondent No.2 by narrating all the antecedents and finally requested to operate his account, for which respondent No.2 has given an endorsement on 1i.1O.2022 stating that "seizure is still in frozen status". Questionirig the said endorsement, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

Smt S.Ananthi, learned Special Public^prosecutor for CBI, appearing for respondent No. 1 filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Savings Bank account of the petitioner was not freezed during the course of investigation of thc instant case, but, however, the account was freezed during the course of investigation of Crime No.RC l0 (A)/2010 (C.C.No.2 of 2Ot2l, in wirich petitioner's father was an accused. However, the accused was acquitted by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, rvherein there is no mention of said account number in the^judgment, neither CBI trled any appeal against both the orders. Hence, freezing the account of the petitioner does not serve any purpose now.

¶28

In the light of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 and also considering the submissions made by learned Special Public Prosecutor, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondent No.2 to forthwith defreeze the Savings Bank Account bearing A/c.013210011006276 maintained. by the petitioner with

¶29

¶30

¶31

respondent No.,t Blnk within a period of one we:k frorrr th: date of receipt of a copv tl'this order and allow the petitioner .o op()rate the bank accou;tt.^-- rcre shall be no order as to costri.

¶32

Miscellzrrre,, us petitions, if an1,, pending in this r,,rit petirion

¶33

shall stand ,,-losc.. L

¶34

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSI:;1ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t-, SEC'I-ION OFFICER

¶35

¶36

To 1 The insper;^r)r of^{Police, CBI ACB, KendriyaSatJan, sttll;ln []azar'Koti'} Hvderabrtcl

¶37

2 it; S;;i;; Branch^{Manager, Union Bank of lncia (forrr';rlyAndhra Bank)'} Baohaml)e rx't Branch.^HYderabad

¶38

3 ffiEirC'6 liii cnrlounittAcEswnne^RAo {{v9.1te^[oPUC] 6;; ijc i.^{'rr,s. S.AunurHl, sPL PP FoR cql t9!V9l}

¶39

4( one^(.rc tc^{IFIIA.VENKATA'r.r"AiAinr'rn iiAo 5c roir uatloPUCl} f) Two CD Cr^oi:s

¶40

PSK. GJP

HIGH COUR T

DATED:1 2106t2023

ORDER

WP.No.858 <fi 2023

STA r€
({(;='
/, v
1A 1 ]'--
Ii rI]\ ?$n
.r .,
'\ ).,;,, a ',/,/t
<br>:..
...--),.,

¶46

¶47

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT^(:OSTS.

¶48

L5 @4"' fn v'.) r3^.

B. Jyothi Kiran v. CBI Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Jyothi Kiran v. CBI Acb

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

fKorra Veerander Naik Vs Smt. Dheeravath Neha

Smt.Natasha Inani Vs M/s. C.S. Creamery Pvt.Ltd

Sri. S. Surendhar Goud and 9 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

M.Jalapathi Vs The State of Telangana

Chinna Somya Vs The Union of India

Palle Sai Kiran Goud Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 4 others