Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
ANIL L. PANSARE, RAJ D. WAKODE
Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The common question that requires answer in these petitions is, whether an Investigating Agency has power to debit freeze an account under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) ?
2] There is no dispute that in all these petitions, the accounts of the petitioners have been debit freezed under Section 106 of the BNSS. The reason why the accounts are debit freezed is that there occurred some cyber fraud, and that, part of amount of the alleged fraud has been credited to the accounts of the respective petitioners.
3] We have, accordingly, heard the Counsels for both sides, and have gone through the record to find that in some cases, the Investigating Agency has issued a communication to the Bank to debit freeze the accounts of the respective petitioners, however, in many cases, even such communication is not issued to the Bank, at least, the communication is not placed before us by the concerned Bank. It is, thus, a mystery as to how the Bank chose to debit freeze the accounts of their own.
4] We, accordingly, permit respective petitioners to seek compensation, if so desired, for such an action, by filing appropriate proceedings. If such proceedings
MR GAURAV RAJESH MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY - Bombay (2025): The provided description states only that "has been published by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India." No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment patterns (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled, reversed) are present. Treatment is unclear and ambiguous due to lack of any subsequent case treatment information.
Sanjay Gupta vs State of West Bengal - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 219: The provided description states only that "Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur vs. Union of India & Ors. ... has been published by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India." No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment patterns (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled, reversed) are present. Treatment is unclear and ambiguous due to lack of any subsequent case treatment information.
The Investigating Agency lacks authority to debit freeze bank accounts under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
An investigating agency cannot debit freeze a bank account without a Magistrate's order, as per Section 106 of the Banking Regulation Act.
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....
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.
The Court established that bank account freezing must be limited to requisitioned amounts, protecting the petitioner's rights under relevant legal provisions.
Writ petitions challenging bank account freezing under Section 106 BNSS not maintainable; approach Magistrate under Section 503 BNSS.
Court establishes guidelines for bank account lien under police requisition, ensuring the petitioner's rights are considered.
The court mandates limitations on bank account freezes related to police requisitions and establishes communication obligations between law enforcement and financial institutions.
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
