The bank may only freeze amounts directly linked to substantiated transactions, not unsupported estimates of total involvement.

ORDER

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 W.P.(C) No.11663 of 2025 was disposed of with the following directions:-

“(i) The 3^rd respondent-Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the Bank Account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order / requisition issued by the police authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his Account beyond the said limit;

(ii) The police authorities are directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's Account will be required to be continued even in the afore manner, and if so, for what further time;

(iii) On the Bank receiving the afore information/intimation from the police authorities, the Bank will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein or withdrawing it, as the case may be.

(iv) If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again, for which purpose all their contentions in the writ petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.

(v) The jurisdictional police officer shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the Bank Account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with Section 102 Cr.P.C. is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's Bank Account;

(vi) In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the Bank as well as the petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional police officer and retain proof of such service.”

2. The petitioner has filed Review Petition stating that though the original disputed amount was only ₹12,000/- at the time of disposal of the writ petition, an amount of ₹1,19,200/- has now been frozen. The petitioner submits that there is no such transaction in the Bank Account of the petitioner warranting freezing of an amount of ₹1,19,200/-.

3. When this Review Petition came up for admission on 27.01.2026, Standing Counsel for the Bank was required to get instructions and give the particulars of the disputed amount.

4. The Standing Counsel fairly submitted that there was no doubtful transaction extending to ₹1,19,200/- and the said amount was freezed as it is the amount which is involved in the crime originally as per the information given by the Cyber Cell, Anand, Gujarat.

5. The total amount involved in the offence cannot be freezed in the account of the petitioner, as the only transaction in the petitioner’s account allegedly connected with the incident is ₹12,000/-.

In the circumstances, the Review Petition is disposed of clarifying that the respondents will be at liberty to freeze only an amount of ₹12,000/-.

Sd/-