Freezing bank accounts entirely without quantifying disputed amounts violates fundamental rights; only disputed amounts should remain on hold.

Order

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred seeking a direction for the respondents to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case are that alleging certain fraudulent transactions, three bank accounts of the petitioners have been freezed under the instructions of different Cyber Crime Police Stations, details of which are provided hereinunder :-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not indulged in any kind of fraudulent activity. The bank accounts freezed under the instructions of the cyber police stations directly relates to the livelihood of the petitioners and they are facing great hardship and inconvenience due to the same. He further submits that even though only a certain amount is said to be disputed, for which a hold has already been placed by the respective banks, the entire bank account has been freezed, which in no manner can be said to be justified. He, therefore, prays that keeping the disputed amount on hold, the bank accounts of the petitioners may be directed to be unfreezed for all operations.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has though opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that keeping the disputed amount on hold during investigation of the case would be sufficient to serve the interests of all the parties.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.

6. No doubt, the statutes empower the investigation agency to request the Bank to freeze the account pending investigation and intimate it forthwith to the jurisdiction Court, but there cannot be freezing of account perpetually without intimating the account holders what for their account is freezed and what extent it has to be freezed because great inconvenience and hardship is caused to the day to day financial life of the persons concerned, since the very life-line of the business gets severed by such unilateral orders of account freezing passed by the Police.

7. In the case at hand, though only a certain amount is disputed and the same has been kept on hold, but due to the blanket order to freeze the account, the respondent Banks have freezed the accounts in their entirety. Therefore, the petitioners herein are unable to operate their accounts and deal with the money lying therein. Under the guise of investigation, order freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount and period cannot be passed. Such order will be construed as violation of the fundamental rights of trade and business as well as violation of livelihood. This court is of the considered opinion that keeping only the disputed amount on hold would serve the interest of the parties.

8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to de-freeze the respective bank accounts of the petitioners, details of which have been provided above and keep a lien over the disputed amount. The petitioners herein are permitted to operate their accounts.

9. The miscellaneous petition is allowed with the above directions.