IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

118+119 (2 cases) CWP-12328-2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 Gagandeep Phutela …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents And CWP-12346-2026 Gagandeep Phutela …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Mohit Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India (through video conferencing) with Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India-respondent No.1 Mr. Teginder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5-State Bank of India (in CWP-12328-2026)

and for respondent No.4-Punjab National Bank (in CWP-12346-2026)

Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4 (in CWP-12328-2026)

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP No.12328 of 2026.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent-banks to de-freeze his bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank, State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent- banks have frozen petitioner’s accounts without notice. As per petitioner’s information, the bank has acted upon directions of Law Enforcement Agencies. He is not involved in any criminal activity. He is not named in any FIR relating to financial fraud, if any, committed by unknown persons. There is one suspicious entry of ₹2,15,000 in his account maintained with State Bank of India. He transferred a sum of ₹1,70,000 to his account maintained with ICICI Bank and ₹35,000 to account maintained with Punjab National Bank. There is no order of Magistrate under Section 107 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’) with respect to his account.

The petitioner shall not use suspicious amount.

4. Learned counsel for respondent-banks submits that respondent- Banks have acted upon directions of Law Enforcement Agencies. They have not received any order from Magistrate. They have no knowledge about involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence which prompted authorities to take impugned action. As per their information, different amount of entries are suspicious in petitioner’s accounts.

5. Heard the parties and perused the record.

6. Kerala High Court in Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerela, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546 has held that freezing of bank accounts must be proportionate, reasoned, and supported by material indicating the account holder's involvement in the alleged offence. Bank account under Section 106 of BNSS cannot be attached. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP being SLP (Cri.) No.13433/2025 filed against aforesaid judgment.

7. Bombay High Court in Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778 has held that an Investigating Agency has no power to debit freeze or attach a bank account under Section 106 of the BNSS, and that any such action can be taken only in accordance with Section 107 of the BNSS upon orders of the competent Magistrate.

8. Delhi High Court in Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055 has observed that freezing of an entire bank account merely on account of a small and identifiable amount alleged to be proceeds of cyber fraud having been credited therein, is a disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power, particularly when the account holder is neither an accused nor even a suspect in the offence under investigation. The Court emphasized that such blanket freezing, without recording or communicating any reasons, results in grave civil and financial consequences, including disruption of business operations, dishonour of cheques and severe hardship, and directly impinges upon the right to livelihood. Innocent and