Geeta Kampani v. State of Maharashtra, 2026

The Magistrate directed de-freezing of bank accounts and mutual fund units of the accused.

The Magistrate imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹6.55 crores.

One application was filed by the first informant challenging de-freezing.

Another application was filed by the accused challenging the bank guarantee condition.

The accused argued there was no nexus between the accounts and the alleged offence.

The accused contended that Section 102 CrPC was wrongly invoked.

Whether police can freeze or seize bank accounts under Section 102 CrPC without establishing a nexus with the alleged offence?

Whether bank accounts and mutual funds fall within the meaning of “property” under Section 102 CrPC?

Whether Section 102 CrPC can be used for recovery or securing alleged losses?

Whether imposing a bank guarantee condition for de-freezing is legally valid?

The Court held that bank accounts are “property” under Section 102 CrPC.

The Court held that seizure is valid only when a direct nexus with the offence exists.

The Court held that Section 102 CrPC applies only when property is suspected to be linked to an offence.

The Court held that mere ownership by the accused is not sufficient.

The Court held that Section 102 CrPC is meant for investigation and evidence preservation.

The Court held that it cannot be used for recovery or compensation purposes.

The Court found no prima facie nexus between the accounts and the alleged offence.

The Court held that the bank guarantee condition was excessive and oppressive.

The Court held that such a condition defeated the purpose of de-freezing.

The Court held that conditions must be reasonable and proportionate.

The Court modified the order by substituting bank guarantee with indemnity bond.

The Court restricted the scope of Section 102 CrPC.

The Court prevented arbitrary freezing of financial assets.

The Court reinforced the requirement of clear nexus between property and offence.

The Court clarified that investigative powers cannot be used for recovery purposes.

The Court emphasized proportionality in judicial conditions.

The Court prevented coercive use of bank account freezing.

The Court balanced investigation interests with property rights.