Birch fire case: Court orders de-freezing of Ajay Gupta’s bank account

PANAJI
The Additional Sessions Court, Mapusa has set aside the freezing of a bank account belonging to one of the accused in the Birch by Romeo Lane fire tragedy, holding that there was no requirement for its continued attachment after the investigation stage and no indication that the funds constituted proceeds of crime.
The order was passed on Tuesday in response to an application filed by Ajay Gupta seeking the de-freezing of his bank account, which had been attached by the Anjuna police during the course of the investigation.
Gupta, in his plea, maintained that the account had no connection to the alleged offence and sought the restoration of normal operations.
During the hearing, the prosecution, in its reply, stated that during investigation, it was found that the accused was in Goa at the time of the alleged fire incident and allegedly fled to Delhi the following morning. It further submitted that the accused was later arrested in Delhi on December 10, 2025, and his account was frozen as part of investigative measures.
After hearing the arguments, the court noted that the freeze had been imposed during the investigation, but its continuation was not shown to be necessary.
“Admittedly, the aforesaid bank account was frozen by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as a measure to secure the presence of the accused no.1. The reply of the prosecution does not indicate that continuation of the freezing of the account is necessary for trial or any other purpose. It is not the case of the prosecution that the amount lying in the account constitutes proceeds of crime or that its continued seizure is required for evidentiary purposes,” the order said.
The court further observed that a bank account constitutes valuable property and cannot remain under indefinite restriction without legal justification.
“A bank account is a valuable property of the account holder and indefinite freezing thereof would result in undue hardship and prejudice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, further freezing of the account is not warranted,” the court ruled.