Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Yajo Technologies Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally signed
by ALOK
SHARMA
ALOK Date:
SHARMA 2026.08.05
11:46:33
+0530
1
CGHC010256782026 2026:CGHC:32825-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 389 of 2026
M/s Yajo Technologies Pvt Ltd. Having Its Registered Office At Supreme Work
Coworking, Eros City Square Mall, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122018, Through Its
Director Mr. Jijo K.G. Aged About 35 Years S/o Geroge R/o Door No. Ff 16 C
Block, Rr Kaliru, Nanjundapuram Road, Tamil Nadu 641036, Presently At G-
82, Pocket-I, Block-G, Dilshad Colony, Delhi 110095
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Superintendent Of Police District North Bastar Kanker, Office Of The
Superintendent Of Police, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
3 - Station House Officer Police Station Kanker/ Cyber Cell, Kanker, District
North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
4 - I D F C First Bank Limited Through Its Branch Manager Unit No. 23-24,
Ground Floor, D L F Cross Point, Phase 4, Nearby Galleria Market, D L F
City, Gurugram, Haryana, 122102
5 - Federal Bank Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Office At 21 Variety
Hall Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641001
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Prakash, Advocate through V.C.
along with Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General.
2
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30/07/2026
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, through video conferencing, along with Ms. Anamika Jain. Also
heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for
the respondent/State.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following
reliefs::
“10.1. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, calling for
records including the complaint, FIR, seizure memo,
Magistrate’s order under Sections 106 and/or 107 of
BNSS, or any other communication/order forming the
basis of freezing/debit restriction of the Petitioner’s
bank accounts; and/or10.2. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the
Respondent authorities and the concerned banks to
forthwith defreeze the Petitioner’s bank accounts
bearing IDFC First Bank Account No. 89150406008
and Federal Bank Account No. 10920200050513;
and/or10.3. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the
Respondent authorities and the concerned banks from
imposing any blanket debit freeze/restriction on the
Petitioner’s bank accounts without disclosing the
specific transaction, quantified amount, material relied
upon and order of the competent authority/court
3authorising such freezing; and/or.”
3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the business of digital payments,
payout facilitation and allied payment aggregation support services for
merchants and businesses operating within the digital payments ecosystem.
The petitioner maintains, inter alia, its business accounts bearing Account No.
89150406008 with IDFC First Bank and Account No. 10920200050513 with
Federal Bank for its day-to-day business operations, merchant settlements
and allied transactional services. The petitioner came to know that its IDFC
First Bank account had been frozen pursuant to communication dated
06.05.2026 issued by the Cyber Cell, Kanker, in connection with Crime No.
146/2026, directing the Bank to furnish transaction details and to immediately
freeze the account. The petitioner also received an e-mail dated 30.04.2026
from the Federal Bank informing that debit transactions in its account had
been restricted. Upon seeking clarification by e-mail dated 11.05.2026, the
Federal Bank, by its reply dated 16.05.2026, informed the petitioner that the
account had been debit-frozen pursuant to the directions issued through the
National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP) and advised the petitioner
to approach the Chhattisgarh Police authorities for issuance of revised
instructions for removal of the freeze. Thereafter, on 26.05.2026, the
petitioner submitted a detailed representation through e-mail to the
Superintendent of Police, District North Bastar, Kanker, with a copy to the
Station House Officer, Cyber Cell, Kanker, requesting de-freezing of both the
bank accounts and seeking copies of the complaint, FIR, freezing
communications, NCCRP directions and other relevant documents forming
the basis of the freezing action. However, despite the said representation and
the lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken by the respondent
4
authorities, nor has any response or relevant material been furnished to the
petitioner, compelling it to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
4. Due to the continued freezing/debit restriction of its business bank
accounts, the petitioner has been deprived of access to its lawful business
funds, thereby seriously affecting its day-to-day business operations. The
petitioner is engaged in the business of digital payments, payout facilitation
and allied transactional services, and the frozen accounts are essential for
merchant settlements, payouts and other legitimate business transactions. As
a consequence of the freezing of the aforesaid accounts, the petitioner has
been prevented from carrying on its regular business activities, resulting in
severe financial hardship and disruption of its commercial operations. Despite
its willingness to cooperate with the investigation and furnish all necessary
documents, transaction records, merchant details and other information as
may be required by the investigating agency, the respondent authorities have
neither disclosed the material forming the basis of the freezing action nor
removed the debit restrictions. The continued blanket freezing of the
petitioner’s business accounts, without disclosure of any specific transaction
or quantified amount allegedly involved, has caused grave prejudice to the
petitioner’s lawful business and has adversely affected its ability to honour its
financial commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business.
5. The action of the respondent authorities in freezing/debit restricting the
petitioner’s business bank accounts has been taken without furnishing any
specific complaint, transaction-wise particulars, beneficiary details, quantified
amount, seizure memo, or any order of the competent Magistrate under
Sections 106 and/or 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS). Although Crime No. 146/2026 has been registered by the Cyber
5
Cell, Kanker, the petitioner submits that no material has been supplied
indicating its involvement in any unlawful betting, gambling, fraudulent or
other illegal activity. Even assuming, without admitting, that certain
transactions are under investigation, the respondent authorities ought not to
have imposed a blanket debit freeze on the petitioner’s entire business
accounts. At the highest, only the specific amount allegedly connected with
the investigation, if any, could have been secured by placing an appropriate
lien or limited restriction. The continued freezing of the petitioner’s entire
business accounts, without disclosing the specific transactions or the
quantified amount allegedly involved and without following the procedure
prescribed under law, is wholly disproportionate, arbitrary, violative of the
principles of natural justice, and infringes the petitioner’s rights guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The impugned action of the respondent authorities has deprived the
petitioner of access to its legitimate business funds and has caused serious
disruption to its lawful commercial activities. The continued freezing/debit
restriction of the petitioner’s business bank accounts has paralysed its day-to-
day operations, including merchant settlements, payouts and other legitimate
financial transactions, thereby causing grave financial prejudice. The blanket
freezing of the entire business accounts, without disclosing any specific
transaction, quantified amount or material linking the petitioner with the
alleged offence, and without adherence to the procedure prescribed under
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is arbitrary, unreasonable and
disproportionate. The impugned action, therefore, amounts to an unwarranted
interference with the petitioner’s right to carry on its lawful business and is
violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and
21 of the Constitution of India.
6
7. This Court, vide order dated 27.07.2026, directed the concerned
Superintendent of Police to file his personal affidavit in the matter. In
compliance with the said direction, the Superintendent of Police, District
North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), has filed his personal affidavit on 29.07.2026,
which reads as under:
“2. That the petitioner has preferred the captioned writ
petition praying for a direction to the respondent
authorities and the banks forthwith defreeze the
petitioner’s bank accounts bearing IDFC Bank First to
Account No. 89150406008 and Federal Bank Account
No. 10920200050513 and to restrain the respondent
authorities and the concerned banks from imposing any
blanket debit freeze/restriction on the petitioner’s bank
accounts without disclosing the specific transaction,
quantified amount,material relied upon and order of the
competent authority/Court authorizing such freezing.
3. That, the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, has created a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal to
prevent cyber crime in India in which, the victims of
cyber crime report online by giving details of the cyber
fraud committed with them and by filling the information
of mobile numbers and bank accounts used in cyber
fraud.
4. That, the brief description of the case is that, the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has
established a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal to prevent
cyber crime in India. Victims of cyber crime can report
online by detailing their cyber fraud, including the mobile
number and bank account used in the fraud. These are
the bank accounts used by cyber crime offenders to
launder fraud proceeds.
5. That on 25.04.2026, while the police party is on
patrolling nearby the city along with the staff for crime
7investigation, information was received from an informer
that at Pappu Dhaba, Aaturgaon, that some people were
earning money by sitting on the roadside in Aaturgaon
Nakapara, playing online betting through mobile phones
and making illegal transactions by providing IDs. While
reaching the site the police party summoned notice to
Naveen Hiradhar and Mohd Iqbal who were present
near Pappu Dhaba, Kanker to verify the information.
After summoning Iqbal Khan and serving him
noticeunder section 179 BNSS and informing him about
the information given by the informant, on reaching the
place mentioned by the informant, Aaturgaon Nakapara,
some people were seen in suspicious condition on the
side of the main road, whom they were surrounded and
after conducting a raid, the accused persons namely 1.
Oshin Baghmare S/o. Praveen Baghmare age 25 years;
2. Aman Kumar Rai S/o. Ajay Rai; 3. M Sandeep Kumar
S/o. late M Shankar; 4. Saurabh Singh S/o. Ajay Singh
were found who were making people play online
gambling and betting by providing facility to make ID to
people on MJ BOOK and MDVH BOOK sites
batbhai9.com, cricbet9.com swiftbetz.com. They were
served notice under section 94 of the BNSS on the spot
to produce valid documents/license regarding online
betting through mobile. They told in writing that they do
not have any valid documents in this regard. Redmi
Note 13 5C mobile with mobile no. 7070739292 and
Redmi Note 9 Pro Max mobile without SIM and one
more One Plus mobile were recovered from the
possession of accused Oshin Badhamre. Poco M7
mobile with mobile no. 8839595874 and Oppo mobile
without SIM and cash amount of Rs. 4000/-, Motorola G
06 mobile with mobile no. 6263637716 and 02 other
mobiles were recovered from the possession of accused
M. Sandeep Kumar and an iPhone 13 mobile with
mobile no. 6232714602 and iPhone 15 Pro broken
8mobile with mobile no. 9304866892 were recovered
from the possession of accused Saurabh Singh, total
value of all the mobiles was Rs. 1,15,000/- in the
presence of witnesses Naveen Hirachar and Mohd. As
per the evidence given by Iqbal, the seizure memo was
prepared and the articles used in the crime were seized
and taken into police custody. The accused Oshin
Baghmare, Aman Kumar Rai, M Sandeep Kumar,
Saurabh Singh were found to have committed the crime
FIR has been registered at Crime No. 146/2026 before
Police Station Kanker District North Bastar Kanker (CG)
for the offences punishable under Section 111(2)B.
111(4) of BNS and section 7, 8 of the Chhattisgarh
Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 and section 66 D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 against the accused
persons. They were duly informed about the reasons for
their arrest on the spot and the arrest memo was issued
to them on 26.04.2026 at 00:10 hrs, 00:20 hrs, 00:30 hrs
and 00:40 hrs respectively and their families were
informed about the arrest.
6. The accused Aman Kumar Rai and Saurabh Singh
were produced before the Magistrate on 26.04.2026 and
from where they were sent to jail on judicial remand. On
the basis of memorandum statement of other accused
Osin Baghmare and M. Sandeep Kumar, after detailed
interrogation of absconding accused Kshitij Hirwani and
Vinay Yadav and other accused involved in the case, it
was found that they were working in an organized
manner for onlinebetting. On observation of the seized
mobile phones, the bank accounts used for illegal
transactions of online betting have been put on hold.
7. On 10.04.2026, on the mobile observation of
Chhatrapal alias Kshitij Hirwani, the main accused Vinay
Yadav and the accused involved in online betting
deposited Rs. 99,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- on
913.04.2026 in IDFC First Bank Account No.
89150406008 and Federal Bank Account
1092020050513 No. of YAJO technologies Private
Limited a total of Rs. 1,99,000/- in cash. On receiving
the statement of IDFC First Bank Account of petitioner
YAJO technologies further Private Limited in
investigation, it was found that the said bank account
was continuously deposited at different places. On
perusal of the bank statement, it was found that cash
was deposited and lakhs of rupees were withdrawn. The
arrested accused in the case had stated that the online
betting withdrawn amount deposited was and
simultaneously from different places on a daily basis.
Rupees were transacted from both accounts of IDFC
First Bank and Federal Bank. Suspicious amount trail
was found in Account No. 89150406008 and No.
1092020050513. In the course of investigation, a notice
under Section 94 BNSS was sent to M/s. Yajo
Technologies Pvt. Ltd on 14.05.2026 to present its side,
but due to non-receipt of factual reply regarding the
transactions in the concerned bank accounts, the
accounts debit of M/s. Yajo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has
been frozen. The bank accounts are lien/frozen after the
company provides factual information regarding
suspicious transactions in the bank accounts. It is
respectfully submitted that in the present case
investigation is going on in respect to the absconding
accusing persons namely Vinay Yadav and Kshitij alias
Kshatrapal Hirwani and others in the case. The
necessary report regarding the involvement of petitioner
Wykit Software Solutions Private Limited in the case is
also prima facie made out.
8. That, during the investigation conducted so far, it has
been revealed that the accused persons in connivance
with the other co-accused persons had committed the
10
crime of online betting and have done various
transactions in the accounts maintained by the petitioner
and by such fraudulent means and the aforesaid amount
has been dishonestly transacted and credited by the
accused persons. It is further revealed that, the accused
persons are the instrumental in the use of the aforesaid
bank account number and thereby deceived innocent
persons/people to part with their money, which was
subsequently misappropriated.
9. That, during the course of investigation, it was
revealed that, the accused persons are the member of
an organized crime of online betting and gambling and
had used the accounts of the petitioner for the money
collected during theonline betting and gambling and the
accused persons formed criminal syndicate and
operated within the framework of this criminal
organization, which demonstrates their criminal
tendencies, their connections to organized gangs and
their tendency to commit crimes repeatedly.
10. It is most humbly submitted that in the present case,
the bank account of the petitioner, namely M/s. Yajo
Technologies Pvt. Ltd, was be circulated within the
directly found WhatsApp groups operated by the
accused persons. Clear and explicit instructions were
disseminated in the said groups directing the depositors
to remit the money received from illegal online gambling
directly into this specific account. Thus, it is firmly
established that the petitioner is a direct repository of
the proceeds of crime and an active link in the illicit
transactions. Consequently, cannot claim the defense of
being a bonafide third party, as might have been the
position in older, distinguishable cases relied upon by
them.
11. It is pertinent to mention that a complete debit freeze
of the subject account was an absolute necessity to
11
prevent the immediate withdrawal and siphoning off of
the funds. In the investigation of cases involving online
gambling, it has been consistently observed that within
minutes of a police raid or the apprehension of an
accused, the funds are swiftly withdrawn or transferred
out of the accounts. If the debit freeze had not been
strictly imposed, the entireproceeds of crime would have
been dissipated. leaving no assets available for
subsequent attachment or forfeiture under Section 107
of the the immediate relevant statute. Therefore,
preventive action was legally justified to preserve the
corpus of the illegal earnings.
12. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble High Court
that the syndicates orchestrating such illegal online
gambling networks function through highly sophisticated
and clandestine methods. These bank accounts are
typically operated from remote and undisclosed
locations, and the ill-gotten money is rapidly transferred
through multiple layers of accounts to obscure the
money trail and evade law enforcement. Permitting the
unrestricted operation of the petitioner’s account at this
crucial juncture would have irreversibly frustrated the
ongoing investigation and allowed the perpetrators to
successfully launder the illicit wealth.
13. It is respectfully submitted that the investigating
agency is actively and rigorously investigating the entire
money trail to unearth the broader network. However, to
ensure fairness and uphold the principles of natural
justice, the State is willing to modify the complete freeze
to a lien mark limited strictly to the disputed amount.
This is entirely contingent upon the petitioner company
providing its complete, authenticated balance sheets
and financial records to the investigating officer. This is
required to clearly differentiate and segregate the illicit
gambling proceeds from the alleged legitimate business
12
earnings of the company. Until such financial
transparency is provided by the petitioner, the current
restriction on the account is lawful, proportionate, and
necessary in the interest of justice.”
8. In the case of Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055, it was held as follows:
“12. Here, instead of directing preservation of disputed
amount, which was mere Rs. 200/-, the bank was
directed to freeze the entire account. Such action of
freezing the account, in its entirety, has, reportedly, left
the petitioner high and dry. It has led to significant
adverse financial consequences, including dishonouring
of several cheques issued by the petitioner and the
complete disruption of its business operations.
13. While dealing with a petition involving a similar issue
which happened with a street-vendor, this Court had
made following observation in Pawan Kumar Rai v.
Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936:
25, Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the
entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious
and adverse implication and invades and
encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and
live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence,
amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the
petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to
livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
26,. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency
has identified a specific sum credited to the bank
account of the petitioner, it is difficult to
comprehend as to why the entire bank account of
petitioner has been freezed.
27. Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank
account of the petitioner, without even hinting that
the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice
13in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds
as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable
and sustainable, at the moment.”
14. Investigating Agency is fully empowered to conduct
investigation, and can also, under appropriate
circumstances, send request to the concerned bank,
directing freezing of the entire account.
15. However, when it resorts to above, it must assign
reasons.
16.Such discretion vests with investigating agency, its
better left to them to decide as to when such blanket
freezing needs to be ordered. However, once it chooses
to do so, it must offer some justification. Such blanket
measure, if taken recourse to, without offering any
reason, can certainly play havoc with the financial
concerns of such account holders. In relation to small-
time vendors, it can disrupt prospects of their mere
existence, even. It is not difficult to imagine that any
such action can put their lives in a complete disarray.
17. Therefore, possibility of marking a lien on disputed
amount, whenever it is identifiable, should be explored
as a more appropriate interim measure. Ideally, it should
be the first and foremost option. This would, naturally,
mitigate the undue hardship being caused on account of
blanket freezing of account and would also ensure that
the alleged cheated money remains secured and intact.
18. It is pertinent to highlight that while dealing with a
batch of petitions involving a similar issue, Kerala High
Court in Dr. Sajir v. Reserve Bank of India, 2023 SCC
OnLine Ker 9087 also made observation which reads as
under:–
“11. In the afore perspective, when the
requisitions in these cases-by various Police
Authorities in several States of India mention the
exact amount suspected to have been credited to
the accounts of the petitioners herein, one fails to
14fathom why their bank accounts in full, should
remain frozen. This is more so because, even
when the sums in question may have found credit
in the accounts of the petitioners, unless the
investigation eventually reveals that they were
complicit in the Cyber Crime, or had received the
same being aware of it, they could never be
construed to be accused.”
12. In fact, should the criminal enquiry found
otherwise, it will be doubtful if the amounts in
question could be even recovered from the
petitioners, if they have received it as part of
bonafide or other valid transactions, unaware of it
being proceeds of crime.”
9. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent/State,
submitted that this Court, in Vikram Singh Rana v. Union Of India & Others
(WPCR No. 366 of 2026), decided on 27.07.2026, has already considered
an identical issue relating to freezing of bank accounts during investigation
and held as follows:
“14. Having considered the rival submissions and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court
finds that only an amount of ₹33,000/-, credited to the
petitioner’s account on 09.01.2026, has been identified
as the suspected amount. The petitioner’s salary is
regularly credited into the said account, which is also
linked to repayment of his housing loan. In such
circumstances, freezing the operation of the entire bank
account would result in undue hardship to the petitioner
and would be disproportionate to the object sought to be
achieved. Accordingly, while the lien over the disputed
amount of ₹33,000/- shall continue in accordance with
law, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the bank
account for all other legitimate transactions, subject to
his extending full cooperation to the investigating
15agency as and when required.”
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
pleadings, the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police as well as the
documents placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner’s grievance
essentially relates to the continued blanket freezing/debit restriction imposed
on its business bank accounts. The petitioner has contended that the freezing
of the entire accounts has brought its day-to-day commercial activities to a
standstill, whereas the respondent/State has justified the action by submitting
that the accounts were found to have been used for routing proceeds of
alleged online betting transactions and that investigation into the larger
money trail is still in progress. At the same time, in paragraph 13 of the
affidavit, the investigating agency has itself stated that it is willing to modify
the complete freeze by restricting the operation of the accounts through a lien
limited to the disputed amount, subject to the petitioner extending cooperation
in the investigation and furnishing the requisite financial records.
11. It is well settled that the investigating agency possesses the authority to
direct freezing of bank accounts during the course of investigation wherever
the circumstances so warrant. However, such power is required to be
exercised in a fair, reasonable and proportionate manner. Where the alleged
tainted amount is identifiable, a blanket prohibition on the operation of the
entire bank account, particularly when the account is used for carrying on
legitimate business activities, may result in disproportionate hardship. The
Delhi High Court in Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
(2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055), after considering earlier decisions including
Pawan Kumar Rai and Dr. Sajir, has observed that, wherever feasible,
preservation of the disputed amount by way of marking a lien should
ordinarily be preferred instead of freezing the entire account. This Court has
16
also adopted the same principle in Vikram Singh Rana v. Union of India &
Others (WPCR No. 366 of 2026), wherein it was directed that while the lien
over the disputed amount should continue, the petitioner therein be permitted
to operate the account for all other lawful transactions.
12. In the present case, the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police
specifically discloses that cash deposits of Rs.99,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-,
aggregating to Rs.1,99,000/-, were allegedly deposited in the petitioner’s two
bank accounts and are stated to form part of the suspicious transactions
under investigation. The investigating agency has also expressed its
willingness to substitute the complete debit freeze with a lien confined to the
disputed amount. In the considered opinion of this Court, the interest of a fair
investigation can adequately be protected by preserving the alleged disputed
amount, while at the same time permitting the petitioner to carry on its
legitimate business operations. Such a course would balance the competing
interests of the investigation and the petitioner’s right to conduct its lawful
commercial activities.
13. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the ends of justice would be adequately served by protecting the amount
alleged to be connected with the investigation while permitting the petitioner
to carry on its legitimate business operations. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the allegations under investigation, the
respondent Banks are directed to permit operation of the petitioner’s bank
accounts, namely, IDFC First Bank Account No. 89150406008 and Federal
Bank Account No. 10920200050513, subject to maintaining a lien over the
disputed amount of Rs.1,99,000/-, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall
extend full cooperation to the investigating agency, furnish such documents
17
and information as may be lawfully required during the course of
investigation, and shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever
called upon to do so.
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok
