Investigating agencies lack the power under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to unilaterally debit freeze bank accounts. Such actions must comply with Section 107 of the BNSS, which requires adherence to procedural safeguards and prior authorization from a competent Magistrate.

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

1. The present petition assails the action of respondent No. 1 of issuing communications to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the concerned banks, whereby the bank accounts of Petitioner No. 1 have been directed to be put on hold/frozen.

2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are engaged in the business of buying and selling, inter alia, gold ornaments, gold items, gold bars, coins, and precious stones, and have been carrying on such business in compliance with all applicable regulations.

3. In July 2024, a company by the name of Dallas E-com Infotech Private Limited (hereinafter ‘the Customer’) approached the petitioners for the purchase of gold items, including gold bars and coins.

4. It is stated that prior to entering into any transactions, the petitioners undertook due diligence and complied with all applicable Know Your Customer (KYC) norms. It is also stated that the petitioners obtained and verified adequate banking and identification details of the Customer, and the transactions were carried out through regular banking channels.

5. However, it is the petitioners’ case that between August 2024 and March 2025, multiple transactions were carried out with the Customer, aggregating to approximately Rs. 14,20,74,954.99/-. Subsequently, certain complaints appear to have been registered against the Customer by third parties. It is, however, stated that no complaint, FIR, or proceeding has been registered against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, despite this, and without any verification or finding regarding the petitioners’ involvement or complicity, respondent No. 4 proceeded to communicate directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, resulting in the freezing of the petitioners’ bank accounts.

6. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, reiterates that if any investigating or enforcement agency forms an opinion that the petitioners are complicit in any offence, such agency is fully empowered to proceed strictly in accordance with law. However, the petitioners herein remain completely unaware of any case registered against them or of any investigation in which their complicity is even alleged. He categorically submits that no summons, notice, or intimation has ever been served upon them by any investigating or enforcement agency.

7. The Court had earlier directed for issuance of notice and called upon respondent No. 4 to file status reports.

8. The last status report placed on record by respondent No. 4 is dated 20.05.2025. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.12.2025, this Court directed respondent No. 4 to clarify certain specific aspects. For clarity, the operative portion of the order dated 02.12.2025 reads as under:-

“1. A status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4. However, contrary to the directions contained in the order dated 17.11.2025, the said status report does not disclose whether there exists any direct complicity of the petitioner in the ongoing investigation/s by the local police authorities.

2. The respondent no.4 is accordingly directed to liaise with the concerned local police authorities and file a status report, specifically disclosing the aforesaid aspect.

3. It is further noticed that the status report, filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 makes a reference to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Dr. Sajeev vs. RBI & Anr., wherein it has been held that the freezing of bank accounts shall