An order freezing bank accounts without notice and proper reporting to the magistrate is legally unsustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.Nos.28018 & 25949 of 2025 Ramesh @ Mint Ramesh ...Petitioner in bth the Crl.O.P.s Vs.

1. State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station, Kolathur.

2. The Manager Axis Bank, Mogappair Branch, Chennai District ... Respondents in both Crl.OPs Prayer in Crl.OP.No.28018 of 2025: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the 2^nd respondent to defreeze the petitioner's bank account bearing No.924020024195640 maintained with Axis Bank India Limited, Mogappair Branch, Chennai Prayer in Crl.OP.No.25949 of 2025: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the 2^nd respondent to defreeze the petitioner's bank account bearing No.923010067932749 maintained with Axis Bank India Limited, Mogappair Branch, Chennai and further direct the 1^st respondent not to freeze any bank accounts of the petitioner in connection with FIR in Crime No.350 of 2025 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, Senior counsel for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 Addl.Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in these petitions are interlinked, they are taken uptogether and a common order is passed.

2. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to direct the 1^st respondent to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioner bearing Nos.924020024195640 and 923010067932749 maintained with Axis Bank India Limited, Mogappair Branch, Chennai.

2. These petitions have been filed challenging the freezing of the Bank Accounts of the petitioner maintained in the 2nd respondent Bank.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant was engaged in the realestate business and purchased 90 cents of land belonging to his mother-in- law, situated adjacent to the Puthagaram bypass. The said land as plotted into sites and sold to about 50 purchasers, while 8 plots of 600 sq.ft., were retained. The petitioner along with his associates, threatened the defacto complainant on the pretext that he had sold poramboke land, forcibly taken 5 cents of land and sold to A.2 and the defacto complainant was taken to petitioner's office and subjected to assault and abusive language, therefore, an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.350 of 2025 against the petitioner for an offence under Sections 131, 140(2), 189(4), 308(2), 336(2) and 351(3) BNSS Act. While so, without following any procedure, the 1^st respondent has taken steps to freeze the Bank Accounts of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petitions have been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that freezing of the Bank accounts by the respondent police is totally unwarranted and the same is violative of the mandatory requirements under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., / Section 107 of BNSS, 2023.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Police submitted that since investigation is pending, Bank accounts cannot be de-freezed at this point of time.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

7. Freezing of Bank Accounts has been held to fall within the purview of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 107 of BNSS, 2023. Since the Bank Account is treated to be a movable property. Where the Bank Account is freezed without notice to the concerned person and report is not immediately sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, the freezing of Bank Accounts gets vitiated and the same requires the interference of the Court.

8. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Honourable Supr