A Public Provident Fund account is immune from attachment and must be de-frozen.

The petitioner, an Indian Oil Corporation General Manager accused in a corruption case, sought relief under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the Special Judge’s order refusing to release cash and foreign currency seized from him or to de-freeze his bank accounts.

The seized property included ₹3,67,000, €5, US$2,000, the petitioner’s SBI savings account, and a PPF account held by him as guardian for his son.

The CBI had filed a charge-sheet and, during the petition, a supplementary charge-sheet; it maintained that investigation remained open, including for collection and examination of voice samples.

The Special Judge had refused the requested relief on the basis that the property might be proceeds of crime and could be liable to confiscation.

1. Whether the seized cash and foreign currency should be released, and the petitioner’s SBI savings account de-frozen, while the investigation remained open and before trial determined whether the property was linked to the alleged offences.

2. Whether the PPF account held by the petitioner for his son could lawfully remain frozen in light of the statutory protection against attachment under the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968.

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as discussed in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685, permits seizure or prohibition of operation of a bank account where the account has a direct link with the offence under investigation.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 were considered in relation to protection of PPF funds from attachment; relying on Union of India v. Hira Devi, AIR 1952 SC 227, Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance, AIR 1976 SC 1163, and the Gauhati High Court’s decision in Jagatsinh Laljibhai Vasava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, WP(C) No. 5074/2013, the Court treated PPF funds as protected from attachment.

The application was brought under Section 528 BNSS, while the original request before the Special Judge had been made under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC.

The Court declined to release the cash and foreign currency or de-freeze the savings account because the investigation remained open, the trial had not commenced, and it was premature to determine whether the seized property was connected to the alleged crime or could be subject to confiscation.

The CBI’s earlier request to deposit the cash in its current account did not establish that the property was unrelated to the case or would not be needed at trial.

In contrast, the PPF account was protected by the statutory bar against attachment. The Court therefore held that the investigating agency could not keep that account frozen.

The Court rejected the requests for custody of the seized cash and foreign currency and for de-freezing the petitioner’s SBI savings account.

It ordered the SBI PPF account held by the petitioner for his son to be de-frozen immediately.