Shivaji Manikrao Padol And Other v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:5794-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1372 OF 2024 SHIVAJI MANIKRAO PADOL AND OTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Mr. Mane Dhananjay A, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A. B. Girase, Chief Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 to 3State ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 21/02/2025.

...

PER COURT :

1.

The Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.20 of 2023, registered on 03/10/2023, with Saharsa Cyber Police Station, invoking Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(B) and 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act. 2.

Our attention is drawn to page No.22 of the petition paper book, which is a communication dated 06/10/2023, by the Cyber Police Station to the Branch Manager of IndusInd Bank, Respondent No.4 herein. The amount fraudulently transacted is mentioned as Rs.10,000/-. The fraudulent transactions are two in number. The account through which such fraudulent transactions were carried

out, is also mentioned in the said letter.

3.

The bank is requested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, Bihar that the account be frozen to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. However, the entire account has been frozen and it is the contention of the Petitioner that the said account has around Rs.60,000/-. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has moved an application in the form of a representation, dated 13/03/2024 to Respondent No.3. The same is pending. 4.

In view of the above, we expect Respondent No.3 to deal with the said representation and if it appears to the said authority that the bank needs to be addressed on the point of withdrawing the order of freezing to the extent of the whole account and restricting it to the amount which is said to be fraudulently transacted, an appropriate direction may be issued and the bank may be communicated.

5.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the representation tendered by the Petitioner.

6.

With the above observations, this Petition is disposed off.

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) VS Maind/-