The court ruled that freezing bank accounts under the UA(P) Act without following specified procedural safeguards constitutes an illegal seizure, violating principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the freezing of his bank accounts in connection with NIA Case No.RC- 10/2019/NIA/GUW pending before the Court of Special Judge, NIA, Dimapur Nagaland without following the due process as mandated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P) Act,1967).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Imti Longjem as well as Mr. Sentiyanger, learned Special P.P for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of a firm M/S Atwa Enterprises (herein referred to as the petitioner’s firm). The petitioner’s firm has an account bearing No.31650533776 in the State Bank of India,(SBI) Khonsa Branch Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner’s firm also has another account bearing No.50200018467151 in the HDFC Bank Limited, Tinsukia Branch Assam. Both the accounts have been freezed by the respective banks on the instructions of the respondent No.1/NIA in connection with NIA Case No.RC-10/2019/NIA/GUW pending before the Court of Special Judge, NIA, Dimapur, Nagaland.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the NIA had filed an FIR No. RC-10/2019/NIA/GUW dated 17.09.2019 under Section 384 /34 IPC , section 7 NSR and Section 13 and 20 of the UA (P) Act, 1967 against Shri. Luckin Mashangva and Shri Jaikishan Sharma who have been named as the accused persons in the said FIR. After the investigation started in the year 2019, the two bank accounts of the petitioner’s firm mentioned above were freezed by the concerned banks. In the meantime, the NIA has already filed charge-sheet on 14.02.2020 before the learned Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland against the two aforementioned accused persons under /120(B) and Section 17 UA (P) Act, 1967. The petitioner is not named as an accused in the charge-sheet.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application to the Branch Manager of the SBI, Khonsa Branch and HDFC Bank Tinsukia Branch seeking the reasons as well as the documents based on which the accounts of his firm have been freezed. By letter No.BM/58/2025-26/16 dated 05.05.2025, the Branch Manager SBI, Khonsa branch replied that the account of the petitioner’s firm was freezed on the basis of a letter i.e.NIA Case No.RC- 10/2019/NIA/GUW dated 9.12.2019. Similarly, the HDFC Bank vide letter No.2025-26/1064/003 dated 10.04.2025 also replied that the account of the petitioner’s firm was put on debit block on the basis of a notice received from the NIA Kolkata dated 20.12.2019.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power to search and seize property under the UA(P)Act is provided in Section 25 of the Act. He submits that the procedure envisaged under the said section and the rights flowing from the said provisions have not been followed while making the aforesaid seizure making the seizure illegal. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 2 (h) of the UA(P) Act, bank accounts also comes within the definition of property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when an officer is investigating an offence under chapter IV and chapter VI of the UA(P) Act, the order to seize or attach the property can only be made with the prior approval in writing of the Director General of Police of the State in which the property is si