Order

1. The instant criminal writ petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred seeking a direction for the respondents to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case are that alleging certain fraudulent transactions, bank account of the petitioner has been freezed, details of which are provided hereinunder :-

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.

4. No doubt, the statutory framework empowers the investigating agency to request the concerned Bank to freeze a bank account during the pendency of investigation and to forthwith intimate such action to the jurisdictional Court. However, such power is neither unfettered nor capable of being exercised in an unbridled or mechanical manner. The authority to interdict the operation of a bank account is an extraordinary measure, which must be invoked sparingly, with due circumspection, and strictly in consonance with the safeguards enshrined under law. The freezing of an account cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely or perpetually without apprising the account holder of the reasons necessitating such action, the nature of allegations, the extent of freezing, and the duration thereof. Any action to the contrary would not only offend the principles of natural justice but would also result in manifest arbitrariness.

5. The freezing of a citizen’s bank account, in the absence of cogent and justifiable reasons and without establishing even a prima facie nexus between the said account and the commission of a cognizable offence, amounts to a grave, unwarranted and excessive intrusion into the sacrosanct fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such an action, if undertaken in a routine, cavalier or mechanical manner, has the effect of crippling the financial autonomy of an individual and strikes at the very root of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which has been expansively interpreted to include the right to livelihood, dignity, and economic freedom. It also directly impinges upon the freedom to carry on trade, occupation and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in 1978 AIR 597 has categorically held that any procedure which deprives a person of life or liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. The power to freeze a bank account, therefore, being drastic in nature, must be exercised only upon recording reasons which demonstrate a live, proximate and direct nexus between the account sought to be frozen and the alleged criminal activity. Any freezing order passed dehors such essential safeguards would be nothing but a colourable exercise of power, vitiated by arbitrariness, and liable to be struck down.

6. In the case at hand, though it is not in dispute that only a certain quantified amount is alleged to be the subject matter of investigation and the same has been kept on hold, yet, by virtue of a blanket and sweeping direction issued by the investigating agency, the respondent-Banks have proceeded to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners in their entirety. Such an omnibus freezing order has resulted in grave, disproportionate and far- reaching civil consequences. The petitioners have been rendered completely incapacitated from operating their bank accounts, thereby depriving them of access to their own legitimate funds. The cascading effect of such freezing is not merely confined to inconvenience but extends to severe financial distress and existential hardship. The petitioners are unable to meet their day- to-day household expenses, discharge their financial obligations, pay salaries to employees, honour business commitments, service loans, or even meet essential expenditures such as medical needs, education e