Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4656
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
[2026:RJ-JP:533]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 557/2025
Dharmendra Chawra Harish Bhai S/o Shri Harish Bhai, Aged About 40 Years, Resident No. 36/501, Geeta Apartment, Near Balkrishna Temple Ranip, Police Station Ranip, District Ahmedabad (Gujrat) Pin 382480, Presently Tenant Nilesh Bhai Shah, House No. 08, Arvind Society, Gayatri Mandir Road, Ranip, Police Station Ranip, Ahmedabad (Gujrat) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail, Karauli).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14644/2025
Vikram Singh S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Malrananchod Thana Malaranadungar District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Confined In Jail Sawai Madhopur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : By Court order
Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Sharma, DIG Cyber Crime
Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
05/01/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dushyant Singh Naruka
For the Respondents: Vikas Sharma, Vijay Singh Yadav, Manvendra Singh Choudhary
Law enforcement agencies lack the authority to impose blanket freezes on bank accounts during investigations. Such powers must be exercised proportionally and with judicial oversight, limited to identified crime proceeds, to prevent infringing upon the fundamental right to livelihood and ensuring compliance with established procedural safeguards.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Sections 106, 107, 168 - Indian Penal Code/BNS - IT Act - Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 - Sections 23-A, 28 - Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 - Cybercrime investigation - Investigative powers regarding bank accounts - Blanket freezing of bank accounts - Principles of natural justice - Investigating agencies are not adjudicators - Right to livelihood protected under Article 21 - Seizure of property as evidence vs. attachment of proceeds of crime - Mandatory requirement of reporting to jurisdictional Magistrate - (Paras 17, 30, 31, 38, 40, 48, 50)
(B) Police authority - Power of police to seize accounts under BNSS is restricted to securing evidence during investigation; it does not authorize unbridled freezing of accounts, causing hardships to citizens - Police officers should act as investigators, not as mediators in financial disputes - Blanket freezing of accounts infringes upon right to life and livelihood - (Paras 36, 37, 44, 49)
Facts of the case:
The court dealt with multiple petitions concerning the arbitrary and blanket freezing of bank accounts by law enforcement during the investigation of alleged cybercrimes and financial frauds. The petitioners, including small-scale vendors and individuals, were impacted by the restrictive measures taken by investigating agencies, which disrupted their financial freedom and right to conduct business. The court took suo motu cognizance of the issue, examining the legality of such actions under the newly introduced codes and existing financial regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that investigating agencies often act without due procedure by issuing orders to freeze entire bank accounts rather than marking liens on specific disputed amounts. It emphasized that police officers must act judiciously and in accordance with the law, ensuring that innocent account holders are not subjected to undue harassment. The court highlighted the distinction between seizure for evidence and attachment of crime proceeds, mandating judicial oversight.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the blanket freezing of bank accounts by the police in cybercrime investigations, the scope of police power under the relevant criminal procedure codes regarding financial assets, and the balance between investigative requirements and the fundamental right to livelihood.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the current procedural laws, police lack the power to unilaterally freeze or attach entire bank accounts. Investigating agencies must follow a transparent process, limit restrictions to identifiable amounts derived from crime, and promptly report such actions to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Any freezing of accounts without following these mandates and without objective justification constitutes an abuse of process and a violation of the fundamental right to livelihood.
Result: Mandatory guidelines issued for the police and financial institutions to govern the investigation process, including the requirement for prior approval from senior supervisory officers, the proportionality of measures, and immediate notification to judicial authorities.
Key Points: - (!) The Court emphasizes police not to harass banks/PSOs and to limit actions to lawful channels. - (!) - (!) Section 106 BNSS allows seizure by police, with requirements to report to Magistrate and consider rapid disposal under certain conditions; distinguishes seizure (106) from attachment (107). - (!) - (!) Section 107 BNSS permits attachment/forfeiture only by Magistrate order; procedures for show-cause notices and distribution of proceeds. - (!) - (!) Discussion of existing SOPs and the Draft SOP (NCRP-CFCFRMS) and the need for guidelines to prevent misuse and protect funds of innocent account-holders. - (!) - (!) Section 23-A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 safeguards funds and provides priority claims, limiting police power over PSOs. - (!) - (!) Guiding Principles for SOPs: proper use of hold/seizure, notification, due diligence, non-arbitrary actions, grievance redressal, and ensure victim resolution. - (!) - (!) Kerala High Court observations urging restraint on blanket freezing and advocating lien-based interim measures to protect victims and account holders. - (!) - (!) Rajasthan/Delhi/Bombay appellate discussions on necessity of justification for freezing, the danger of blanket freezes, and the requirement of reporting seizure to Magistrate "forthwith." - (!) - (!) Directives to DGP and banks/PSOs for training, nodal officers, and prohibiting blanket holds; requirement to inform Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of any lien or hold. - (!) - (!) Specific prohibitions on blocking entire accounts; recognition that transactions linked to vendors or goods/services may not justify lien; emphasis on NCRP-CFCFRMS integration.
What is the scope and limitation of police powers under BNSS Sections 106/107 regarding freeze/attachment of bank accounts in cybercrime investigations?
What are the guidelines or safeguards required for banks and payment system operators when responding to police information requests and handling disputed cyber fraud funds?
What measures and rights are established for balance protection, due process, and avoidance of undue hardship to account holders during cybercrime investigations?
REPORTABLE
1. At the time of consideration of Bail Application No. 10675/ 2025, Dharmendra Chawra Harish Bhai Vs. State of Rajasthan in FIR No. 02/2025 dated 03.02.2025, registered at Cyber Police Station District Karauli for offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2) of BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act, this Court has observed that a bank account in RBL Bank was used extensively for cyber crime and cheating, but the interrogation note suggested that the petitioner is working on a salary of ₹27000/- per month as a salesman and having a friendship with Nehul, who is operator of bank account of petitioner maintained in RBL Bank in which the crime proceeds were transferred. This Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Karauli to submit his comments about shoddy investigation, as no action was taken against main accused- Nehul.
2. In another matter, while considering second bail application No. 14644/2025, Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan on 17.11.2025, this Court has observed as under:-
“Before parting the order, it is appropriate to call comments from the DGP/ADGP (cyber crimes), primarily dealing the cyber crime in the State about collection of information from banks account and wallet operators of any individuals and also blocking of such account or money in pursuant to information so received.”
3. Even in year 2025, more than 100 matters involving cyber crimes and criminals were placed before this Court for consideration at bail stage. In more than 80% of the cases, FIR is registered at the instance of police and almost all detained persons are youths at this stage (age between 18 to 30 years). Almost 90% of them were booked for the first time meaning thereby they are chance criminals and not habitual criminals. Almost all were from Deeg, Alwar, Bharatpur, Sawai Madhopur, Khairthal- Tizara Districts. Probably, large number of youth in these areas are unemployed.
4. Pursuant to above a criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 557/2025, was registered. The High Court has power and authority under Section 528 of BNSS and also under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to take cognizance of the issues on its own and issue appropriate directions, as it is Court of record.
5. Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) is reproduced as under.
528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
“Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
6. Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are reproduced as under for any reference.
“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for suc
