1

Sl. No.73.
M/L.
4‐07‐2019
S.D.
W.P. 18909 (W) of 2018

Sudev Chandra Mandal
vs.
The State of West Bengal Ors.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Das
….For the Petitioner.
Mr. Sakhya Sen
Mr. A.L. Chatterjee
….For the State.

Ms. S. Ojha
….For the Respondent No. 7.

The petitioner complains that, the police have unreasonably

directed freezing of his fixed deposit account standing in his name.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that, the petitioner and his son are joint account holder. The

fixed deposit account was opened in the year 2012 and that, the First

Information Report (in short FIR) was lodged in the year 2018.

Therefore, the proceeds in the account cannot be said to certain

proceeds of a crime.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits

that, there is a complaint against the son of the petitioner under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The son of the petitioner
2

was asked to cooperate with the investigation. Notice under the

SectionCr.P.C. was issued to the son of the petitioner. The son of the

petitioner is not responding thereto.

The Court is informed that, the son of the petitioner is

presently in Russia.

In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to

permit the parties to file affidavits.

Let affidavit‐in‐opposition be filed within four weeks from

date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

The writ petition will be treated as ready for hearing

immediately on completion of the time stipulated for filing

affidavits.

Liberty is given to the parties to mention the matter for early

hearing.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be

made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite

formalities.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)
3
4
5
6
7