The court established that freezing a bank account in a cyber crime investigation must specify the amount involved and comply with procedural requirements; otherwise, such an action is illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. Heard Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Jaiswal Ojus, learned counsel appearing for the Axis Bank.

2. In spite of several notices given to the Investigating Officer, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rachakonda, Hyderabad, Telangana, none has appeared on behalf of the same.

3. The office report indicates that service of the previous orders has been done upon the Respondent No. 4.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Axis Bank has fairly submitted that till date, they have neither received any seizure order from the Respondent No. 4, nor received any indication as to the amount that is required to be put in lien with regard to the petitioner's bank account. Shri Amit Jaiswal refers to the notice under Section 94/106 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 received by the Bank on November 21, 2025, that has sought for debit freeze of the account of the petitioner. No further documents have been received by the bank in spite of several letters written by the bank to the Investigating Officer concerned. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court that has specifically dealt with this issue in great detail in the case of Dharmendra Chawra Harish Bhai Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 557 of 2025, wherein certain directions have been issued in relation to how an account may be seized as per Section 106 read with Section 94 of the BNSS.

5. Before proceeding to come to a finding as to whether the action of the respondents is in consonance with the law, one needs to place on record the provision under which the present actions have been initiated. Ergo, Section 106 and Section 94 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 are delineated below:-

"106. (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:

Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 505 and 506 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

***

94. (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices which is likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proce