Nexus With Offence Required For Bank Account Seizure U/S 102 CrPC: P&H High Court Rejects CBI's Plea Challenging Account De-Feezing Order

While upholding the decision of de-freezing the bank account of a teacher accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act of having disproportionate assets, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that there must be a nexus between the bank account and the offence alleged, to give rise to a suspicion qua the commission of an offence.

Perusing Section 102 CrPC, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "what flows from the above provisions of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is that the requirement for such a seizure is that there must be a nexus between the bank account and the offence alleged, so as to give rise to a suspicion qua the commission of an offence. In the case at hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that she has a separate and independent source of income as a teacher and since her salary accounts have been attached, she has been unable to meet her ends."

The Court was seized of a petition filed by CBI seeking quashing of the order passed by a special CBI Judge in Haryana who had allowed the application for de-freezing the bank account of a teacher accused of having disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was alleged that a reasonable suspicion exists that the proceeds from the ill-gotten wealth and criminal activities acquired by the prime accused Harjeet Singh Puri, spouse of the respondent were deposited in various bank accounts held by close relatives, including his wife.

Consequently, there may exist a potential nexus between this money trail and the bank account of the respondent which would have been possibly used for the purpose of purchasing properties, paying insurance premium, among other transactions, added the CBI.

Furthermore, it was submitted that in the supplementary charge-sheet, the name of the respondent was also added as an accused for having disproportionate assets.

However, the respondent submitted that that there exists no substantial material on record indicating her involvement in the case in hand; which is evident from the omission of her bank account from the charge sheet which has been presented against her.

It was also contended that she has a separate source of income as she is taking tuition and has been severely impacted due to the attachment of her salary account, making it extremely difficult to sustain herself.

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that it has not been disputed by the counsel for the CBI that the bank accounts of the prime accused Harjeet Singh Puri had been released.

Justice Kaul rejected the contention of CBI that another FIR under the PC Act for disproportionate assets stands registered against her. "however, this contention of the CBI cannot be accepted at this stage, as the said FIR is not pending adjudication before this Court," said the Court.

The Court added that apart from the above contention, no intervening circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court which would warrant freezing of the bank accounts of the respondent more so, since the CBI has not disputed that the bank accounts of the respondent were not made part of the charge sheet or of the case property.

In light of the above, the Court opined, "no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order."

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Appearance: Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate for the respondent.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 283

Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvinderjeet Kaur Puri

Click here to read/download the order