The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 49 of 2025 Bidyashree Parida …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Opp. Party Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 05. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 30.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the Parties. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27.12.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in Criminal Misc. Case No.19 of 2024, arising out of VGR Case No.07 of 2023, has been called in question in this revision. 3. The background facts of the case are that the husband of the Petitioner, who is a government servant working as a Junior Engineer in the office of the Block Development Officer, Badamba, during his continuance in service, was subjected to trap by the Vigilance Cell in Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No.04 of 2023, and was implicated in the offence under section 57 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, facing the trial before the learned Special Judge, Cuttack. 4. In course of the investigation, the bank account of the Petitioner, was freezed, along with some Sale Deeds, allegedly found involved in the crime. The Petitioner, who is the wife of Bauri Bandhu Parida, the Junior Engineer facing the trial, moved an application before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack under Section 503 of BNSS, 2023, praying to defreeze the bank accounts, allowing her to operate the same and for release of the Sale Deeds, seized in connection with the aforesaid vigilance case. 5. Learned trial court having found the action of the Investigating Agency in the aforesaid vigilance case necessary to freeze the operation of the bank accounts of the Petitioner and the seizure of the Sale Deeds, declined to allow the prayer of the Petitioner. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the bank accounts freezed by the Investigating Agency belonged to the Petitioner, who is simply the wife of the Petitioner and has every right to operate her account, having no nexus whatsoever with her husband, who has separate bank accounts. Learned counsel Page 2 of 6 further submitted that the Sale Deeds in question which have been seized in connection with the case are self- acquired property of the Petitioner and have no connection whatsoever in the alleged proceeding initiated by the vigilance and as such submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 7. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, fairly submitted that three bank accounts standing in the name of the Petitioner, may be allowed to be operated, subject to imposition of the condition that the outstanding amount in the bank account on the date of freezing be kept untouched. However, he vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the release of the Sale Deeds. According to Mr. Das, these Sale Deeds have direct nexus with the proceedings, inasmuch as the release of these Sale Deeds may affect the trial of the case. 8. Perusal of the case record, more particularly, the claim of the Petitioner as submitted before the learned trial court under Annexure-1 reveals that the Petitioner is having three accounts in HDFC Bank, Bank of Boroda and Punjab National Bank consisting of account No. 50100106766761, 25050100008293 & 08682151000874 Page 3 of 6 respectively under seized list Sl. No. 2, 4 and 15. The said application further reveals that the seizure list in item No.26, 27, 28 & 29 relates to the seizure of original Sale Deed Nos.11131311750, 1131105476 & 6868 stands in the name of M/s Parida Infra Solution and while three Sale Deeds stand in the name of M/s Parida Infra Solution, and only one Sale Deed stands in the name of Smt. Bidyashree Parida. 9. It is alleged that the petitioner’s husband, while in service, had been running a business in the name and style of M/s Parida Infra Solution, and accordingly, the sale deed in respect thereof stands in the name of M/s Parida Infra Solution, which has a direct nexus with the case pending against the petitioner before the learned trial court. As far as the three bank accounts are concerned, the same stand in the name of the Petitioner-wife, and there appears to be no material to justify keeping those accounts freezed, except for withholding the amount retained in the said accounts as on the date they were freezed, i.e., 27.04.2023. There is also no material before this Court to prevent the petitioner from obtaining the release of the sale deed bearing No. 392102235 in her favour. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court, while allowing the prayer of the Petitioner for Page 4 of 6 defreezing the bank accounts standing in her name in HDFC Bank, Bank of Baroda, and Punjab National Bank, directs that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking not to disturb or use the amount standing in the said accounts as on the date they were freezed, i.e., 24.07.2023. She may operate the accounts subject to this condition and further undertakes to abide by any restrictions that may be imposed on the said accounts as and when required for the purpose of adjudication of the case pending against the petitioner’s husband before the trial court. 11. So far as the sale deed bearing No. 392102235 is concerned, the same shall be released in favour of the Petitioner, subject to her filing an affidavit before the trial court undertaking not to encumber the said property for any purpose whatsoever until disposal of the aforesaid vigilance case and to produce it as and when required by the learned trial court. 12. It is further directed that in the event the Petitioner submits the affidavit the learned trial court shall do well by releasing the original Sale Deed being substituted by its certified copy and necessary direction be passed by the learned trial court addressing the respective Banks enabling the Petitioner to operate the bank account keeping the amount retained in the said accounts undisturbed in respect Page 5 of 6 to the transaction made till 24.07.2024. With the above observation, the impugned order is modified and the Revision Petition stands disposed of. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AK Pradhan/Sarbani Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Aug-2025 16:28:59 Page 6 of 6