JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.12(A) of 2017-R registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B/406/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for issuing direction to the C.B.I. to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the brief facts of the case is that an F.I.R. was registered inter alia against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner being the Managing Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Deputy Manager of State Bank of India, Hatia Branch and consequently the Bank transferred Rs.100,01,41,016/- belonging to “Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran” to the bank account of the said M/s. Bhanu Construction and consequently the petitioner utilized/transferred/ misappropriated the amount of Rs.52,36,03,016/- out of the said transferred amount till 19.09.2017- which is the date of detection of the said fraud and there is further allegation that on 28.09.2018, the said State Bank of India, Hatia Branch was able to recover an amount of Rs.35,95,27,344/- out of the transferred amount of Rs.52,36,03,016/- from M/s. Bhanu Construction and the outstanding amount as it stood on 11.07.2018 was Rs..16,40,76,059/- plus interest of Rs.3,19,41,398/- that is in total Rs.19,60,17,457/-. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that an amount of Rs.50,00,00,000/- has been sent to the said account with State Bank of India in connection with a business transaction. On 19.09.2017, the partner of the petitioner was telephonically informed by the officers of State Bank of India, Hatia Branch that there has been certain overdrawing from the bank account of the petitioner and the petitioner came to know on 21.09.2017 through the e-mail from State Bank of India, Hatia Branch that an amount of Rs.100.01 crore has been deposited in the said account due to some clerical error. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken on 28.06.2019. It is also alleged that the petitioner received a letter from H.D.F.C. Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch informing the petitioner that State Bank of India, Hatia Branch has informed the H.D.F.C. Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch that certain transaction has been wrongly entered by State Bank of India, Hatia Branch hence, H.D.F.C Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch was not in a position to honour any debit instruction of the petitioner and the effect of the said communication is that the account of the petitioner with H.D.F.C. Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch has been rendered frozen with suspended operations. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after 05.08.2017 whatever transfers were made by the petitioner to the said account with the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch was adjusted by the bank towards the said purported credit of Rs.101.01 crore and the petitioner has been verbally informed by the other bankers that they have been informed by the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch that any amount lying in the accounts of the petitioner with them is the money of the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch and the petitioner is not being allowed by its bankers to operate its account by making any transfers or withdrawal. It is further submitted that such a situation has arisen on account of the mistake committed by State Bank of India, Hatia Branch and the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch in an unilateral manner directed all the bankers to freeze and suspend the operations of the accounts of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is unable to transact any banking business. It is also submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 04.10.2017 to the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch to defreeze the account of the petitioner. It is next submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar that on 30.01.2019 a proposal was made by the petitioner for full and final payment of the fund in the account of M/s. Bhanu Construction erroneously transferred by the State Bank of India. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that C.B.I. in the meantime has submitted charge sheet. Anil Kumar that on 30.01.2019 a proposal was made by the petitioner for full and final payment of the fund in the account of M/s. Bhanu Construction erroneously transferred by the State Bank of India. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that C.B.I. in the meantime has submitted charge sheet. It is then submitted that on 20.08.2019, the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch has issued a letter to M/s. Bhanu Construction of which the petitioner being the only partner, intimating that the said bank accepted compromise proposal dated 06.03.2019. It is also submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being the partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction filed anticipatory bail application vide A.B.A. No.6218 of 2019 before this Court and considering the facts of the case, this Court was pleased to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner provisionally with the condition that in case the of the petitioner being arrested or surrendering in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi by 17th October, 2019 he will be enlarged on bail provisionally up to 17th January, 2020 on showing proof of deposit of Rs.8,17,50,000/- on any day after 06.09.2019 with the S.B.I., Hatia Branch and furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh) with two sureties one of which should be a government employee of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with R.C. No.12(A)/2017-R and also it was ordered that in case the petitioner shows the proof of further deposit of 4,08,75,000/- by 17th January, 2020 with the S.B.I., Hatia Branch, his provisional bail was to be extended up to 17th April, 2020 and in case the petitioner shows the proof of deposit of another sum of Rs.4,08,75,000/- by 17th April, 2020, his provisional bail was to be extended up to 17th July, 2020 and upon the petitioner producing the “No-Dues certificate” from the said Bank and filing the same in the trial Court on or before 17th July, 2020, his provisional bail would be confirmed by the trial court till disposal of the case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application to defreeze the bank account which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. It is next submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application to defreeze the bank account which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that though bank account is material evidence but since the matter has been settled between M/s. Bhanu Construction and State Bank of India, Hatia Branch by certain terms and condition hence the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi may be set aside and direction be issued to the C.B.I. to defreeze the bank accounts. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no definite information as to whether the account has been freezed by the C.B.I. or not during the investigation of the case. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 2 SCC 372 , paragraph 26 of which reads as under :- “26. Although both sides have adverted to statement of accounts and vouchers to buttress their respective submissions, we do not deem it necessary nor think it appropriate to analyse the same while considering the matter on hand which emanates from an application preferred by the appellants to defreeze the stated bank accounts pending investigation of the case. Indisputably, the investigation is still in progress. The appellants will have to explain their position to the investigating agency and after investigation is complete, the matter can proceed further depending on the material gathered during the investigation. The suspicion entertained by the investigating agency as to how the appellants appropriated huge funds, which in fact were meant to be disbursed to the unfortunate victims of 2002 riots will have to be explained by the appellants. Further, once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the court concerned, it would be open to the appellants to apply for defreezing of the bank accounts and persuade the court concerned that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code. Further, once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the court concerned, it would be open to the appellants to apply for defreezing of the bank accounts and persuade the court concerned that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code. It will be open to the court concerned to consider that request in accordance with law after hearing the investigating agency, including to impose conditions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case.”(Emphasis Supplied) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, paragraph 11 of which reads as under :- “Valuable articles and currency notes 11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.” Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Another reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358 , paragraph 4 of which reads as under :- “4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance.”(Emphasis Supplied) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.T. Enrica Lexie and Anr. v. Doramma and Ors. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 760 , paragraph 14 of which reads as under:- “14. The police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102(1) and no other.” Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi be set aside and the C.B.I. be directed to defreeze the bank account. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi be set aside and the C.B.I. be directed to defreeze the bank account. 4. Mr. Rohit Sinha, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the charge sheet which has been filed along with the writ application at running page no.96 that in this case charge sheet has been submitted against four accused persons including M/s. Bhanu Construction and further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in this case is going on. It is also submitted by Mr. Sinha that consequent upon the petitioner being given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 6218 of 2019, the petitioner went back from his undertaking made before this Court and neither surrendered before the court below nor he has deposited any amount out of the total amount of Rs.16,35,00,000/- which he committed to pay to the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha, that as the further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is going on, hence it will be premature to defreeze the account of the petitioner, if any, as there is every chance of the petitioner misappropriating the aforesaid money lying in the different accounts. Hence, it is submitted that this writ application being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is crystal clear that there is no material in the record to suggest that the C.B.I. has freezed any bank account. It is fairly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that he has also no material with him to suggest that the C.B.I. has frozen any bank account during the investigation of the instant case. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also submitted that there is no material with him to suggest that C.B.I. has frozen the account. Be that as it may, the concerned banks with whom the petitioner is having its accounts have not been impleaded as a parties to this writ application and no relief has been sought against such banks. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also submitted that there is no material with him to suggest that C.B.I. has frozen the account. Be that as it may, the concerned banks with whom the petitioner is having its accounts have not been impleaded as a parties to this writ application and no relief has been sought against such banks. It is evident that though the petitioner has submitted a proposal of compromise, it has been accepted by the bank and though upon the petitioner giving an undertaking to deposit the said compromise amount of Rs.16,35,00,000/- by way of installments the petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail provisionally, yet undisputedly, the petitioner has neither surrendered nor deposited any amount with the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch. There is no dispute that further investigation of the case under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is going on. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any material to suggest that any bank account has been freezed during the investigation of the instant case no order to defreeze any bank account can be passed. Thus this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ application. Accordingly, this writ application being without any merit is dismissed.