Back
Entire Bank Account Cannot Be Frozen for Rs 2,253 Disputed Transaction:
In a significant ruling that underscores the in cybercrime investigations, the has held that a bank account cannot be entirely frozen when the disputed transaction under scrutiny amounts to a mere Rs 2,253. Justice Rishad Medora, presiding over the matter, directed to immediately de-freeze the bank account of Sohel Molla, who runs a small proprietorship named “ROHAN RETAIL,” while permitting the bank to maintain a only over the disputed sum pending further directions from the investigating officer.
The judgment, delivered on , stems from a petition filed by Molla, whose account was debit-frozen pursuant to a notice issued under . The notice originated from the Inspector of Police, , in connection with a cybercrime investigation involving a total transaction of Rs 39,899, of which only Rs 2,253 was disputed. The police direction had expressly required the bank to both “-mark” the disputed amount and “” the entire account. Molla, who claimed he had no knowledge of the case and received no communication from the investigating officer, approached the High Court after the bank refused to unfreeze the account without a formal revocation order.
Background: A Small Businessman’s Predicament
Sohel Molla, a small businessman operating a proprietorship, found his livelihood disrupted when froze his entire bank account following the police notice. Despite repeatedly seeking details of the investigation and requesting the de-freezing of his account, Molla received no response from the investigating officer. The bank, in turn, informed him that it was merely complying with the investigating officer’s directions and could not act without a formal revocation order from the competent authority. Left with no alternative, Molla moved the , challenging the freezing of the entire account on the ground that the notice itself only required a of Rs 2,253.
Key Developments: Court’s Sharp Disapproval
Justice Rishad Medora took a dim view of the investigating officer’s actions, noting that while the notice appeared to concern a specific transaction, the entire bank account had been debit-frozen without justification. The Court observed:
“In my view, since the disputed value of the transaction complained of in respect of the petitioner's Bank Account, is only Rs.2,253/-, there is no justifiable reason as to why the entire Bank Account of the petitioner should be frozen.”
The Court further expressed bewilderment at the logic behind the investigating officer’s directions, stating:
“Having issued a direction to ' Mark' a specific amount in respect of a particular transaction, I am unable to understand or appreciate the necessity behind the direction to the entire Bank Account. Such direction appears to be without any justification whatsoever.”
The Court also took note of the investigating officer’s failure to appear before the Court or respond to Molla’s communications, underscoring a lack of .
Legal Analysis: The
The ruling is a textbook application of the —a bedrock of administrative law and fair procedure. While Section 106 of the BNSS empowers investigating officers to issue directions for preserving evidence or preventing dissipation of proceeds of crime, that power is not unfettered. The Court implicitly held that any restriction on a citizen’s property rights must be commensurate with the alleged wrongdoing. Here, freezing an entire account for a transaction dispute of Rs 2,253 was clearly disproportionate.
The decision also highlights the distinction between a “” and a “.” A merely restricts withdrawal of a specific amount, while a paralyzes the entire account. By conflating the two, the investigating officer overstepped his authority. The Court’s direction to de-freeze the account while retaining a over Rs 2,253 strikes a careful balance: it protects the investigative interest in the disputed sum without crippling the petitioner’s business operations.
Impact on Legal Practice
This judgment serves as an important precedent for practitioners dealing with bank account freezes in cybercrime and other economic offences. It reinforces that investigators must tailor their coercive measures to the specific facts of each case. For banks, the ruling clarifies that compliance with a police notice does not immunize them from judicial scrutiny; they, too, must exercise discretion and, where appropriate, seek clarification from the court if a direction appears overbroad.
The decision also sends a strong message to investigating agencies that blanket freezes without justification will not pass judicial muster. Lawyers representing clients with frozen accounts can now cite this case to argue for de-freezing where the disputed amount is significantly smaller than the total balance or where the freeze lacks proportionality.
Conclusion: A Win for
The ’s order is a vindication of the fundamental principle that no citizen should suffer a disproportionate invasion of their property rights for a minor disputed transaction. By directing the immediate de-freezing of Molla’s account while preserving the over the contested Rs 2,253, the Court has charted a sensible middle path that protects both the interests of investigation and the rights of the individual. As cybercrime investigations continue to rise, this ruling will likely be relied upon to ensure that police powers under Section 106 BNSS are exercised with care and proportion.
The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the matter now rests with the investigating officer to proceed further in accordance with law.
