14. In such a circumstance, wherein the appellant company and the accused Dharmesh Doshi are two separate entities, and the appellant company is in no way connected to the concerned Investigation, the operation of the freeze order against the appellant company, is not legally tenable.
15. Further, It must also be noted that the appellant company herein, till date, has not been named in the FIR or the chargesheet in which the abovementioned Dharmesh Doshi is an accused. It must also be noted that Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CBI, on the basis of Instructions, made a statement before us in open Court stating that no criminal proceedings whatsoever are pending against the appellant company pertaining to the dispute at hand.
xxx
17. Since the appellant company is not connected to the alleged crime, and has not found mention in the FIR or the chargesheet, the freeze order against the appellant company’s properties is redundant qua the investigation, since the appellant company itself is not necessary for the conclusion of the investigation.
18. It has also come to our notice that the operation of the freeze order has been active for a period of 17 years and has caused huge losses to the appellant company. The purpose of the freeze order, and the bank guarantee in extension of the freeze order, can only be in operation to aid in the investigation against the alleged crime. Since the investigation against the appellant company, as has been discussed above, is redundant, hence, the freeze of the appellant company’s assets and the bank guarantee imposed in furtherance of the freeze order also becomes redundant.
19. In the light of above mentioned facts and discussions, the condition imposed upon the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee by the Courts below, is not liable to be sustained and is therefore set aside.
xxx
21. As a consequence, the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount along with 4% simple interest, which shall be payable from 08.05.2006 till the date of actual payment.
PARTY: M/s. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1434 OF 2023 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 9134 OF 2018) – 09th MAY, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/38436/38436_2018_13_1501_44355_Judgement_09-May-2023.pdf
