Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Ashish Rawat – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondent
Writ C. No. 1489 of 2026, Writ C. No. 1118 of 2026, Writ C. No. 1768 of 2026, Writ C. No. 2577 of 2026, Writ C. No. 2691 of 2026, Writ C. No. 2711 of 2026, Writ C. No. 2989 of 2026, Writ C. No. 4227 of 2026, Writ C. No. 648 of 2026, Writ C. No. 665 of 2026, Writ C. No. 889 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026
Key Points: - The court holds that bank accounts are "property" and that seizure under Section 106 BNSS is limited to the amount suspected to be stolen or linked to an offence, not the entire balance (!) . - Prior notice to the account holder before seizure is not required; post-seizure intimation to the magistrate is mandatory and banks must inform the account holder after seizure (!) (!) . - Section 106 (seizure) and Section 107 (attachment) operate at distinct stages: seizure is interim, for investigation; attachment is a judicial action following show-cause and order by a magistrate (!) (!) (!) . - Jurisdictional clarity: seizure to be reported to the magistrate having jurisdiction where the seizure occurs; jurisdiction is tied to the place of seizure, not solely where transactions occur (!) . - The judgment endorses adherence to SOPs and clarifies that innocent account holders should be protected; banks must restore operations for the portion not under investigation (!) (!) . - The court directs proportionate lien on the specific amount involved, and de-freezing or restoration of accounts where appropriate, with final outcomes subject to magistrate orders (!) (!) (!) . - Distinction from prior Kerala/Bombay decisions: in cases involving cybercrime, 106 permits seizure of a portion, not entire account; 107 required for attachment upon magistrate order (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fact of account freezing due to suspicious transactions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the legality of account freezing. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. clarification on procedural requirements for account freezing. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. court's reasoning on law applicable to account freezing and its limitations. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 5. conclusion and directions for ensuring compliance with legal protocols. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 59) |
Judgment :
Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.
1. Heard Shri Shamasul Eslam, learned counsel for the petitioner in leading petition, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 648 of 2026, Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 665 of 2026, Shri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 889 of 2026 & Writ -C No. 1118 of 2026, Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 1768 of 2026, Shri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ -C No. 2577 of 2026, Shri Vidya Kant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 2691 of 2026, Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026, Shri Aditya Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 2989 of 2026, Shri Arun Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ -C No. 4227 of 2026, and Shri Tushar Kant, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing in all the cases for Union of India, Shri Shrey Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in connected Writ-C no. 1768 of 2026, Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (SBI) and Shri Abhishek Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 in connected Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026, Shri Sanji Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in connected Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026 and for respondent nos. 4 to 6 in connected Writ-C No. 2989 of 2026, Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in connected Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026 and Shri Anubhav Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents in all the petitions.
2. All the present petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the bank authorities in freezing their bank accounts. The grievance, in essence, pertains to the restrictions placed on the operation of bank accounts due to investigation of cyber offences where their account had alleged financial transaction. In the light of above-mentioned facts and circumstances petitioners have filed their respective petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents for de-freezing of their bank accounts. Since the reliefs sought in all the petitions are substantially alike, and the matters arise out of similar set of facts involving identical questions of law, all the petitions were connected and taken up together for hearing. However, necessary facts pleaded in each writ petitions and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in the respective petitions are being noticed separately.
3. In Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026 the fact in brief is that the petitioner has got a savings account no. (hereinafter referred as “A/c No.”) 2340000109223949 in Punjab National Bank, Gwal Toli Branch, Kanpur Nagar. On 12.12.2025, the petitioner discovered his online transactions were stopped, thereafter he visited the branch manager the following day, where he was informed that his account had been freezed on instructions of the crime branch without specifying the reason for the freezing.
4. In Writ-C No. 889 of 2026, the factual matrix is that petiti
Police can freeze bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS without prior notice, but only the amounts suspected of being linked to crimes, not entire balances; account holders must be informed post-seizu....
Writ petitions challenging bank account freezing under Section 106 BNSS not maintainable; approach Magistrate under Section 503 BNSS.
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.
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C and the need for sufficient evidence to support the freezing of a bank acco....
The freezing of a business account requires identification of the tainted amount to ensure proportionality, and blanket freezes violate constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
