IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. Cr:M.P.No. :~.....^......../10 APPLICANT: -^^ ^•^^5S^'^ ^^>-y'v:^€^^ Nohar Sing Sonwani S/o Kripal Sing Sonwani Age-50 Years R/o Shiv Nagar, Ward No.2 Durg, Distt. Durg C.G. V/s NON APPLICANT : STATE OF C.G. Through: P.S.- Mohan Nagar Distt. Durg, C.G. APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 482 OF Cr.P.C. FOR RLEASING THE SAVING ACCOUNT ,.:'-.T£2S<- ^' ..""""%> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Cr.M.P. No.593/2010 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Nohar Singh Sonwani Versus State of Chhattisgarh (Auolication u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C.) Appearance: Shri R. K. Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL -ORDER (Passed on 20a November, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 15th July 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Cr. Rev. No.26/10, by which order dated 9.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg /ta-ial Court has been upheld. 3. The applicant, who is accused of having committed an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, moved an application for release of his operational Savings Account No.3191 before the trial Court. The said application has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 9.2.2010 on the ground that the savings A/c -2- i£3& S ::y'.^ ,^f' No.3191 is subject matter of evidence in the criminal case and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, the application has been rejected. Upon revision filed, the learned revisional Court has also disniissed the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the police had already conducted invesdgation and a charge sheet has been filed in the Court. The applicant has been enlarged on bail yide order dated 14.9.2009 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1953/09. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has never hiisused his liberty nor is there any allegation of the applicant in any raanner making any attempt to destroy evidence collected by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration that the applicant has been falsely iraplicated. He further submits that the applicant, if not allowed to operate his account, will suffer from serious prejudice as he is repaying loan amount from the concerned account. He submits that the Court below ought to have allowed the application and release the account by imposing appropriate conditions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for fhe respondent submits that the orders passed by the Court below do not suffers from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. He submits that the allegation against the applicant are grave in nature, wherein, it has been alleged that the applicant had taken huge amount from the complainant in the name of providing employment. He further submits that the transactions in the said account and the money which is lying balance are all subject matter of the trial in the matter of " 3 - v - alleged commission of offence against the applicant and therefore, the orders passed by the Court below are just and proper. 6. A perusal of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate shows that the application of the applicant for release of the account has been rejected on the consideradon that the applicant has been alleged to have comniitted offence under Section 420 of the IPC and that the concerned account is subject matter of evidence dyring the course of trial. The learned revisional Court has not assigned any reason except stating that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is just and proper. 7. The charge sheet in the present case has also been filed. It is relevant to state that the applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court. There are no allegations against the applicant of misusing liberty or in any manner tarapering with the evidence of the prosecution. There does not appear to be any compelling reasons not to release the account and allow the applicant to operate the account during the pendency of the trial, particularly when the charge sheet'has already been filed. Under these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained and are therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate for consideration afresh. In case of release of account, the learned Magistrate shall impose appropriate conditions on the applicant. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastav; Judge Praveen