Facts
Following registration of Crime No. 275/2022, the petitioner’s ICICI First Bank account was frozen.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Magistrate rejected his application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for de-freezing the account; the Sessions Court allowed his revision and directed that the account be de-frozen upon furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹7,08,000.
Source reference: p. 3–4The petitioner furnished the guarantee.
Source reference: p. 4The High Court subsequently quashed the proceedings arising from Crime No. 275/2022 in Crl.P. No. 347/2023.
Source reference: p. 4–6He then sought return of the guarantee and removal of any continuing restraint arising from it.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the bank-guarantee condition imposed as a prerequisite to de-freezing the petitioner’s account should be set aside after the proceedings in Crime No. 275/2022 were quashed.
Source reference: p. 72. Whether the court should direct the return of the bank guarantee furnished pursuant to that condition.
Source reference: p. 7–8Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS).
Source reference: p. 1–2The order proceeded on the basis that, following quashing of the underlying criminal proceedings, the condition requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee no longer warranted continuation.
Source reference: no citationThe judgment did not cite a separate precedent or set out a broader legal test for return of security.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The bank guarantee had been furnished solely to satisfy the Sessions Court’s condition for de-freezing the petitioner’s account.
Source reference: p. 4Since the proceedings in Crime No. 275/2022 had subsequently been quashed, the High Court considered that the basis for maintaining that condition had ceased.
Source reference: p. 6–7It therefore set aside the guarantee condition and directed the court holding the guarantee to return it to the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 7–8Holding
The petition was allowed.
The condition imposed by the Sessions Court requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee was quashed and set aside; the Magistrate or Sessions Judge holding the guarantee was directed to return it to the petitioner within 15 days of receiving a copy of the order.
Source reference: p. 7–8Acts & Sections Cited
8 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734
Indian Penal Code, 18604
Original Court PDF
SRI UMESH C SvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
