Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijaykumar alias Vijay S/o Sitaram Dandanaik, was the chairman of Vasantdada Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd, Osmanabad. He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 279/2023 registered with Osmanabad City Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 409, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (M.P.I.D. Act). The Bombay High Court, by order dated 29.02.2024 in Bail Application No. 271/2024, granted him bail on stringent conditions, including deposit of Rs. 2,31,68,472/- and furnishing security of his landed properties valued at about Rs. 7.73 Crores. The petitioner fully complied with these conditions. However, on 01.08.2024, the Investigating Officer of the Economic Offence Wing, Dharashiv, issued a communication to the Sub Registrar, Dharashiv, purportedly freezing the petitioner's immovable properties. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a Criminal Writ Petition. The court examined whether the Investigating Officer had any statutory authority to freeze immovable properties. It noted that the M.P.I.D. Act does not contain any provision empowering the Investigating Officer to freeze properties. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with seizure of property, applies only to movable property and not immovable property. The court held that the Investigating Officer acted without authority of law and that the freezing order was an attempt to circumvent the bail conditions already complied with by the petitioner. The court quashed the communication dated 01.08.2024 and directed the Sub Registrar to delete any entries made pursuant to it. The court also clarified that the State may take appropriate legal steps if it believes the properties are proceeds of crime, but cannot act without statutory backing.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Freezing of Property - Lack of Statutory Authority - Investigating Officer cannot freeze immovable property by issuing communication to Sub Registrar without any provision under M.P.I.D. Act or Cr.P.C. - The court held that the Investigating Officer has no power to freeze properties under the M.P.I.D. Act, and the action was without authority of law (Paras 5-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Bail Conditions - Compliance - Once bail conditions are complied with, investigating agency cannot impose additional restrictions - The petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,31,68,472/- and furnished land security of Rs. 7.73 Crores as per bail order; freezing of properties was held to be an attempt to circumvent the bail order (Paras 4, 11-12). C) Criminal Procedure - Section 102 Cr.P.C. - Applicability - Section 102 Cr.P.C. applies only to movable property, not immovable property - The court noted that the Investigating Officer cannot rely on Section 102 Cr.P.C. to freeze immovable properties (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Investigating Officer has the authority to freeze the petitioner's immovable properties by issuing a communication to the Sub Registrar, and whether such action is permissible under the M.P.I.D. Act or any other law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 01.08.2024 issued by the Investigating Officer to the Sub Registrar, Dharashiv, and directed the Sub Registrar to delete any entries made pursuant to that communication. The court also disposed of Criminal Application No. 3556/2025.
Law Points
- Freezing of property without statutory authority is illegal
- Investigating Officer cannot freeze property under M.P.I.D. Act
- Section 102 Cr.P.C. not applicable for freezing property
- Bail conditions cannot be circumvented by investigating agency
