The Calcutta High Court, reaffirming existing principles, held that a bank account can remain frozen during investigation, even if the account holder is not named as an accused, when there is material suggesting possible involvement in money laundering or criminal proceeds; this judgment upholds prevailing precedent and has binding precedential value for criminal trial processes involving financial fraud.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/1654/2025 of BULAN DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0167772025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the power to freeze accounts in ongoing investigations even if holder is not accused |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Criminal Procedure; Investigation; Procedural Safeguards) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a bank account may be kept frozen pending investigation, even if its holder is not named an accused? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court observed that, pending investigation of a large-scale financial fraud, and in light of indications that the bank account may have been used as a conduit for proceeds of crime or money laundering, there was no irregularity in the refusal to defreeze the account. The fact that the account holder is not an accused is not, by itself, determinative, especially where material suggests possible involvement. The ongoing and incomplete investigation and the movement of sums from the account to multiple recipients justified continued freezing, to prevent the frustration of investigative objectives and the dissipation of crime proceeds. The application to defreeze was therefore rejected. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specifically indicated in extracted content |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on status report, case diary, and general principles about investigation and preserving crime proceeds. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The police case involved fraud exceeding Rs.18 crores. Rs.1 lakh was deposited into the petitioner’s bank account, allegedly as professional fees, but the petitioner was unable to identify the depositor in the Test Identification Parade. Funds were further transferred to at least three other persons from the said account. Investigation is ongoing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Upholds existing powers of trial courts and investigators to preserve alleged crime proceeds during investigation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that non-accused status of bank account holder is not conclusive for defreezing during investigation, if material connects the account with the alleged crime.
- Investigating authorities may continue to freeze accounts where funds are potentially linked to criminal proceeds, regardless of account holder’s current status in the chargesheet.
- Lawyers should prepare substantial material to contest or support the existence of links between accounts and alleged crime proceeds.
- The Court’s order emphasizes the broader objective of preserving the integrity of financial investigations and preventing dissipation of possible proceeds of crime.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the status report and submissions from both sides, emphasizing the necessity to keep the bank account frozen during an ongoing criminal investigation involving substantial financial fraud.
- Although the petitioner is not currently an accused, the presence of suspicious transactions, incomplete investigation, and the unexplained transfer of funds were regarded as sufficient grounds to continue the freeze.
- The court highlighted the risks of using bank accounts as conduits for laundering defrauded amounts and stated that the probability of such misuse cannot be overlooked at this stage.
- The impugned order refusing defreezing was found free from irregularity or legal infirmity, so the revisional application was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case.
- The police have already filed the charge sheet.
- The continued freezing of the petitioner’s bank account is unjustified, especially in the absence of charges against her.
State
- The police case concerns a financial fraud involving over Rs.18 crores.
- Rs.1 lakh was deposited in the petitioner’s account allegedly as professional fees from “Goutam”; however, the petitioner could not identify Goutam in a Test Identification Parade.
- Funds from the account were transferred to at least three different persons.
- The investigation is ongoing and not yet concluded.
- There is a possibility that the bank account is being used for laundering or as a mechanism to facilitate the crime.
Factual Background
A criminal case was registered involving extensive bank fraud, with allegations that over Rs. 18 crores were fraudulently siphoned by the accused. The petitioner, whose account received a Rs.1 lakh deposit allegedly as professional fees, sought to have her bank account defrozen. She was not named as an accused in the charge sheet. However, she was unable to identify the alleged depositor in a TIP, and further movements of funds raised suspicion. The investigation into these transactions and potential involvement of further individuals was ongoing at the time of the application.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment addressed the powers of courts and investigating agencies under criminal procedure to freeze and retain control over bank accounts suspected of containing crime proceeds.
- No express statutory sections were cited in the available extract, but the analysis rests on established powers during investigation to prevent dissipation of suspected crime proceeds or facilitation of further offences.
- The decision is contextualized within the general power to conserve and preserve property linked to the subject matter of crime during pending investigation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The court accepted and condoned a delay in filing the application for revision, considering the explanation sufficient. No new procedural guidelines or innovations were introduced in the core issue of freezing/defreezing accounts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and clarifies the continuing powers of courts and investigators to preserve possible crime proceeds during pending investigation, even where the account holder is not named as an accused.