JUDGMENT : B. K. Nayak, J. - In all these applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur in different applications under Section 457, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners in G.R, Case No. 258 of 2015, arising out of Chatrapur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2015, which was later converted to CID, CB, Cuttack P.S. Case No. 28 of 2015, rejecting such applications of the petitioners for release of their different bank and postal accounts, which were frozen by the CID, CB, Cuttack in connection with the investigation of the case. The impugned orders in CRLMC No. 1038,1039,1040 and 1037 of 2016 were passed by the learned S.D.J.M. on 05.02.2016, whereas in respect of other applications the impugned orders were passed on 16.02.2016. The main accused is Surababa @ Surendranath Mishra, the petitioner in CRLMC No. 1272 of 2016, and the other petitioners are family members such as, wife, sons, daughter and daughter-in-law of the said main accused. The impugned orders have been passed in one G.R. Case on identical grounds and all the Section 482, Cr.P.C. applications were heard analogously and, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The G. R. Case, corresponding to Chatrapur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2015 was registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the informant alleging to the following effect: The informant started visiting the Ashram of Surababa @ Surendranath Mishra, namely, Trahi Achyut Ashram at Jhinti for treatment of his insane son. The accused Surendranath Mishra assured that by performing some pooja he can cure the son of the informant. Accordingly he treated the informant's son for three to four days by performing some pooja in the Ashram. There the petitioner asked the informant to donate some land at Chatrapur for opening a branch of petitioner's ashram. In view of the promise given by accused Surendranath Mishra to cure his son, the informant agreed to donate A 0.970 of land appertaining to different plots situated at Chatrapur bypass road in favour of Trahi Achyut Ashram Trust. It is further alleged-that accordingly accused Trilochan Mishra, S/o. accused Surendranath Mishra and another person, namely, Debiprasad Rath of Trahi Achyut Nagar came to the office of Sub-Registrar, Chatrapur on 12.04.2014 for the purpose of execution and registration of the gift deed by the informant. It is further alleged-that accordingly accused Trilochan Mishra, S/o. accused Surendranath Mishra and another person, namely, Debiprasad Rath of Trahi Achyut Nagar came to the office of Sub-Registrar, Chatrapur on 12.04.2014 for the purpose of execution and registration of the gift deed by the informant. They prepared the deed and got the signatures of the informant and his son on the same leading them to believe that it was a deed of gift. At a subsequent point of time the informant came to know that accused Trilochan Mishra and his companion fraudulently prepared a sale deed and got the signatures of the informant and his son thereon, with the recitals that a consideration of Rs. 26,84,570/- was laid to the informant towards the sale consideration, though the informant had never received a single rupee. The informant's son was however not cured and when the informant intimated the said fact to accused Surendranath Mishra and also about the fraud committed in the transfer of the property, the said accused turned a dead ear ad that accused Trilochan Mishra and Debiprasad Rath also threatened the informant that in case he discloses the fact to anybody, he and his son would lose their lives. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations in the F.I.R. case was registered for commission of offences under Sections 420/423/467/468/471/406/506/120-B/34, IPC. 3. During investigation the Crime Branch took over investigation of the case as per the CID, CB Office Order dated 04.09.2015 and registered CID, CB, Cuttack P.S. Case No. 28 of 2015 for offences punishable under Sections 420/ 423/467/468/471 /506/120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. During such investigation it came to light that about more than three decades back the accused Surendranath Mishra declared that he had received a "POTHI' of Mahapurusha Achyutananda from one Sadhubaba and he could predict the future of people and offer remedial measures consulting the so-called 'POTHI' and that creating such belief he was collecting huge money from the public by making false predictions and remedial measures. He proclaimed himself as a ?Guru1 and inducted disciples by giving ?Gurumantra? to them, all with a view to deceive people for personal gain. He also formed a trust as "Shree Shree Mahapurusha Achyutananda Ashram Trust" of which he was the founder-trustee. He proclaimed himself as a ?Guru1 and inducted disciples by giving ?Gurumantra? to them, all with a view to deceive people for personal gain. He also formed a trust as "Shree Shree Mahapurusha Achyutananda Ashram Trust" of which he was the founder-trustee. Accused Trilochan Mishra, his oldest son was the Chairman-cum-Managing Trustee, his younger son, Biranchi Narayan Mishra was the Vice-Chairman and some others including accused, Debi Prasad Rath were also the trustees. Large number of people from different parts of the State and outside became his disciples and devotees, from whom money was collected by the trust on different pretexts. In the process the trust collected crore's of rupees from the common people by inducement and cheating. 4. Accused, Surendranath Mishra and the other petitioners (his family members) had opened bank accounts in different banks and post offices at different places which were seized (frozen) by the investigating agency. The petitioners, therefore, filed petitions before the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for release of those accounts, which have been rejected by the impugned orders. 5. The applications were registered as Misc. Cases. The number of misc. cases filed before the learned S.D.J.M. under Section 457, Cr.P.C. by each of the petitioners and the Bank/Postal account numbers of each of them are indicated in the following table : SI No CRLMC No. Petitioner Account Number with name of Bank Misc. Case Number under section 457, CrPC 1. 1272/2016 Surendranath Mishra (self) i) S/B 9569 of Indian Bank, Mausime Temple Branch. ii) S/B. 30747667267 SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch 09/2016 2. 1227/2016 Biranchi Narayan Mishra S/o. Surendranath Mishra 30736351074. SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch 10/2016 3. 1271/2016 Trilochan Mishra S/o. Surendranath Mishra i) S/B 5003968650-4 & 2043848002-5 of Allahabad Bank, Sahid Nagar ii) S/B 55310310000044 of Bank of India, Chandaka Branch iii) S/B 30730711136 SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar 11/2016 4. 1037/2016 Jyosnamayee Mishra W/o Trilochan Mishra i) R D. 32010249753 Of SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch. ii) S/B. 30936738598 SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch 01/2016 5. 1038/2016 Simran Mishra, W/o. Biranchi Narayan Mishra i) S/B 34511817894 of SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch ii) Postal R D. 291158 (P R, No. 40) of Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch 02/2016 6. 1039/2016 Soudamini Mishra. D/o. Surendranath Mishra i) S/B 30850468422 of SBI Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch ii) Postal R.D. 320329 03/2016 7. 1040/2016 Bidulata Mishra. 1038/2016 Simran Mishra, W/o. Biranchi Narayan Mishra i) S/B 34511817894 of SBI, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch ii) Postal R D. 291158 (P R, No. 40) of Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch 02/2016 6. 1039/2016 Soudamini Mishra. D/o. Surendranath Mishra i) S/B 30850468422 of SBI Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch ii) Postal R.D. 320329 03/2016 7. 1040/2016 Bidulata Mishra. W/o Surendranath Mishra i) S/B 457370506 of Indian Bank, Mausima Temple Branch ii) S/B. 80012200024158 of Syndicate Bank, BBSR iii) S/B 30747653913 of SBI Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch iv) S/B 020009 of Khurda Co-operative-Bank, Balkati Branch v) Postal Account 320309, Trahi Achyut Nagar Branch 04 of 2016 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Senior Advocate that power of the Police Officer to seize property under Section 102, Cr.P.C. does not include the power to seize (Freeze) bank accounts. It was further contended that originally the case has been registered against Surendranath Mishra, Trilochan Mishra and Debi Prasad Rath of Trahi Achyut Nagar and that preliminary charge-sheet has already been filed for the alleged offences against accused Surendranath Mishra and Trilochan Mishra keeping the investigation open, but so far as the other petitioners are concerned, namely, the wife, daughter-in-law, another son and the married daughter of Surendranath Mishra, they have not been arrayed as accused and there is no allegation that the ill-gotten money of the Mahapurusha Achyut Nanda Trust was diverted to their bank accounts, and as such, freezing of their accounts by the police was illegal. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that investigation is still continuing by the CID, CB, Orissa, Cuttack and that in the meantime the Enforcement Directorate has registered a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against Surendranath Mishra and others, and that the Enforcement Directorate has directed to furnish all information's with documents as regards the activities as well as the properties including cash and bank accounts of accused Surendranath Mishra and his family members which have been supplied to the Enforcement Directorate, and, since there is a suspicion that the money in the various accounts of the accused Surendranath Mishra and his family members are proceeds of crime, the prayer for their release has been rightly rejected by the leaned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur. It was also submitted that in case the bank accounts are released, the petitioners would withdraw and take away the money from their accounts, which will defeat the ends of justice. It is stated that in case the petitioners so like they are free to open new bank accounts and operate the same for their transactions. It was finally submitted that the Investigating Officer has the power under Section 102, Cr.P.C. to seize bank accounts in case of any suspicion that the money kept in the accounts are the proceeds of or related to crime. 8. After considering the divergent views of different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and whether bank account can be held to be 'property' within the meaning of the said section, the Hon'ble Supreme Court m the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685 held as follows : "Having considered the divergent views taken by the different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be "property" within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we seen no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is "property" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into " In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that bank accounts, particularly that to the relations of the accused are not liable to be seized or frozen is untenable. 9. During the course of argument the learned Additional Government Advocate filed copies of documents to show that the income and expenditure of the Mahapurusha Achyutananda Trust were audited by a Chartered Accountant and as per the audit report money has been shown to have been spent towards purchase of the land from the informant by paying consideration amount as recited in the sale deed, though according to the prosecution no such payment has been made to the informant towards sale consideration. The fact that heavy amount of money was shown as expenditure of the trust, the same can be reasonably suspected to have been diverted and misappropriated and parked in some accounts of the accused and their relations. The statement of the Charter Accountant concerned recorded during investigation clearly supports his audited report. Documents have also been filed to show that the Enforcement Directorate has registered case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and is proceeding with investigation. It also appears that the Income Tax Departments also conducting an inquiry about the income and assets of the Ashram which is run by the accused persons and that the Principal Director of Income Tax Bhubaneswar has written a letter to the Additional DG of Police CID, CB, Cuttack, Odisha requesting not to release cash, bank locker and bank accounts seized by the police since that may adversely affect the investigation process and the interest of the revenue. 10. The learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur, in his impugned orders, has given good reasons for rejecting the petitions for release of the accounts. The seizing or freezing of the accounts has the effect of prohibiting further operation oi transaction in respect of those accounts. 10. The learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur, in his impugned orders, has given good reasons for rejecting the petitions for release of the accounts. The seizing or freezing of the accounts has the effect of prohibiting further operation oi transaction in respect of those accounts. But the money lying in the account is not being taken away by anybody, though withdrawal of the same by the account holder is prohibited temporarily. In case, on the conclusion of investigation or on conclusion of the trial it has found that no offence in relation to the money in the seized accounts has been committed, the account holders will get back their money. Therefore, no serious prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners for seizure of the accounts during investigation. 11. In the aforesaid analysis, I find no merit in these applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners. Accordingly the CRLMCs are dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed