ORDER : – This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the order dated 17-5-2022, passed by the 27th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No. 238/2020 whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application for defreezing his bank accounts. 2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is facing his trial in connection with FIR No. 1410/2019, for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at P. S. Lasudiya, Indore. The case relates to development of a colony and it is alleged that the petitioner has duped the innocent investors as after taking advance amount from them he has failed to deliver the plots to them. After registration of the aforesaid crime against the petitioner, the Police has seized the operation of the bank accounts of the petitioner and he was also arrested. However, his bail application has been temporarily allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26-11-2021 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 10869/2018. 3. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not able to operate his Bank accounts which are necessary for him for the purposes of his business and even otherwise no purpose would be served as the amount deposited in the Bank account has not been seized by the respondents in accordance with section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not misused the liberty extended to him by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is trying to settled the dispute with the plot owners and has not violated any of the condition imposed in the bail order. 4. Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the allegations against the petitioner are of defalcation of money by duping the innocent investors and it is only a part of such money which is lying in his bank account. 5. So far as the seizure of the petitioner’s Bank accounts under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, it is submitted that the Police has adopted the proper procedure to seize the accounts involved in the case. 5. So far as the seizure of the petitioner’s Bank accounts under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, it is submitted that the Police has adopted the proper procedure to seize the accounts involved in the case. Counsel has further submitted that even otherwise the petitioner is claiming the ownership of as many as three accounts; whereas in the petition itself, it is mentioned that only one Bank account is in his own name at Bandhak Bank, Vijay Nagar Branch, Indore and in savings account No. 50180017346467, the petitioner is only a partner; whereas another account No. 50190006194216 is in the name of one Cheri Ajmera. It is further submitted that in all the three accounts, total amount of around Rs. 14 Lakhs is lying. However, the account which is in the exclusive name of the petitioner i.e. account No. 50180017346467 in Bandhak Bank, Vijay Nagar Branch, Indore is concerned, it has Rs. 3,49,100.96/- in the account. Similarly in the Firm’s account, around Rs. 10,49,000/- are lying. Whereas in the account of Cheri Ajmera’s account a sum of Rs. 55,366/- is lying. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out and if at all this Court is inclined to allow the petition, only the account No. 30180017346467 may be allowed to be released. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 7. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner’s account and other accounts have been seized by the Police in connection with the aforesaid offences registered at the Crime No. 1410/2019. However, it is also found that the Police has not adopted the proper procedure as prescribed under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under : – 102. Power of police officer to seize certain property. – (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. – (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale. 8. On perusal of the aforesaid section 102, it clearly reveals that the Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. But in the present case there is no such document available on record to suggest that the Police has complied with the aforesaid procedure. In such circumstance, the seizure of the bank account of the petitioner cannot be said to be legal. Thus, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit and use of his bank accounts. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 17-5-2022 is hereby set aside and it is directed that the petitioner’s bank account so far as in connection with the aforesaid offences, shall be allowed to be operated by him. 10. Thus, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit and use of his bank accounts. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 17-5-2022 is hereby set aside and it is directed that the petitioner’s bank account so far as in connection with the aforesaid offences, shall be allowed to be operated by him. 10. So far as the other Bank accounts are concerned, which are not exclusively in the name of the petitioner, but it appears that he has some stake in those accounts as well. In such circumstances, it is directed that the account holders of the other two accounts shall also be entitled to operate the aforesaid accounts on a proper application made in this behalf before the trial Court by the said account holders. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.