A bank may freeze an account under investigation if directed by authorities following due procedure, as per Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

JUDGMENT :

Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailesh Kumar Pandey, learned panel counsel for the respondent-Bank and Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of freezing of the bank account of petitioner by the respondent bank with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent bank (Respondent no. 5) to defreeze the Saving Account No. 43390100002893 of Bank of Baroda, Branch Imamganj, Mooratganj, District-Kaushambi and to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount from her aforesaid account.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed as a Shikshamitra (Teacher) at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sakhadha, Block Mooratganj, District Kaushambi. The salary of the petitioner is credited into her savings account maintained with Bank of Baroda, Imamganj Branch, Mooratganj, bearing Account No. 43390100002893. It is stated that on 01.09.2022, an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was credited to the said account from Account No. 99980103448713, IFSC FDRL0001306, maintained with Federal Bank, Puthiyara Branch (Gujarat). Subsequently, the petitioner’s aforesaid account was freezed by the respondent Bank. It is further submitted that upon inquiry, the petitioner was orally informed by the officials of the respondent Bank that the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- had been transferred by one Mustaq Ali and that the Anand Cyber Crime Branch, Gujarat Police, had directed the Bank to block the petitioner’s account in connection with the aforesaid transaction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had given applications to the respondent bank stating that she neither knew the aforesaid person who has transferred the amount, nor had any concern with the alleged transaction, and she requested the bank to open the account of the petitioner. She also approached the authorities in the bank and requested for the de-freezing of the account.

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank has submitted on instructions that the account of the petitioner was freezed on instruction of the Cyber Crime Department, Anand, Gujarat and the Bank cannot de-freeze the account without prior approval of the Cyber Crime Department, or the order of the competent court, as the matter is still under investigation and the account in question is “property” under investigation.

6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, opposes the reliefs sought in the writ petition and submits that where a bank has freezed an account in connection with an ongoing investigation, the primary consideration is whether the officer directing such freezing of account has acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ). He has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372 where it was held by the Supreme Court that if the officer concerned has followed the procedure prescribed in Section 102 Cr.P.C. (present Section 106 BNSS) then freezing of the account by the Bank is legally justified.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the bank and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondents, and upon perusal of the record, we