Freezing an entire bank account without evidence linking the account holder to a crime violates the right to livelihood; only specific amounts should be frozen with proper justification.

JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1.Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved that four different bank accounts of the petitioner has been frozen. Petitioner complains that petitioner is a businessman and the bank accounts were used for such business transaction only. However, petitioner is faced with inconveniences because of the huge amount of money which has been frozen and is unable to operate the accounts for business purposes.

2. State has submitted a report. Report reflects that the four accounts have been frozen and to that effect an enquiry was conducted through the government portal which reveal accounts of the following banks :-

(i) Account No. 6043026289114463 of Jana Finance Bank was frozen due to 21 complaints of “Online Fraud” registered at different police stations across various states of India (details enclosed).

(ii) Account No. 20100029600535 of Bandhan Bank was frozen due to 25 complaints of “Online Fraud” registered at different police stations across various states of India. (Details enclosed).

(iii) Account No. 3311110250053986 of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank was frozen due to 1 complaint of “Online Fraud” registered at a different police station Cyber Crime Police Station Rohini, Delhi. (Details enclosed).

(iv) Account No. 50100704735820 of HDFC Bank was frozen due to 1 complaint of “Online Fraud” registered at Cyber Crime Police Station Rohini, Delhi. (Details enclosed).

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities being Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2025) SCC Online Del 1055.

4. Attention of the Court was drawn to paragraphs 11 to 18 and paragraph 22 which are as follows:

11. In the present case, it is noteworthy that the petitioner's bank account, which had a withdrawable balance of Rs. 93,50,05,208/-, was frozen due to innocuous entry of Rs. 200/- being credited therein. There is nothing to suggest that petitioner is suspect or accused of any cyber-crime. The petitioner, quite possibly, may not even be connected with the offence under investigation and might be unintended beneficiary. In such types of cyber-crimes, if any fraudster cheats a complainant and with the help of cheated money, when such fraudster buys something using such money, the police, chasing such money-trail, directs freezing the bank accounts of all concerned and in the process, many innocent recipients have to bear the brunt, for no fault of theirs.

12. Here, instead of directing preservation of disputed amount, which was mere Rs. 200/-, the bank was directed to freeze the entire account. Such action of freezing the account, in its entirety, has, reportedly, left the petitioner high and dry. It has led to significant adverse financial consequences, including dishonouring of several cheques issued by the petitioner and the complete disruption of its business operations.

13. While dealing with a petition involving a similar issue which happened with a street-vendor, this Court had made following observation in Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936.

“25. Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

26. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petiti