The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the State Bank of India to immediately restore a woman’s frozen savings account, which had been entirely blocked by investigators over a single suspicious transaction of 560 rupees.
Justice Anand Sharma ruled that freezing an entire bank account to secure a small, easily identifiable sum is an excessive and disproportionate measure. The court directed the bank to lift the blanket freeze on the Jaipur-based account of 35-year-old Jinat Bano, permitting her to operate it normally while keeping a restriction only on the disputed 560 rupees.
Bano had petitioned the high court against the State Bank of India and the Rajasthan cyber crime deputy inspector general after discovering she was locked out of her account. She argued that she was never served with a first information report or any legal notice indicating involvement in criminal activity, and that her attempts to resolve the issue with bank officials had failed.
The Principle Of Proportionality
Representing the state, authorities defended the freeze as a lawful step to secure evidence. They argued that because cyber and economic offenses involve the rapid transfer of money, immediate preventive action is essential for effective investigations.
However, the court rejected this reasoning, stating that investigative powers are not unlimited and must not be used mechanically or based on generalized suspicion. Justice Sharma emphasized that while authorities have the right to freeze accounts during inquiries, they must show a clear, direct connection between the account and the suspected crime. He added that the investigative process should not act as a form of punishment before guilt is officially proven.
Impact On Daily Livelihood
The court observed that contemporary bank accounts are no longer simple storage spaces for money, but are instead fundamental tools for conducting daily life, receiving salaries, fulfilling contracts, and running businesses. Justice Sharma warned that blanket freezing orders carry severe civil and financial consequences, potentially disrupting businesses and harming individuals who depend on the account holder.
Under the court’s order, Bano must cooperate with the ongoing investigation, maintain the account, and obtain permission before attempting to close it. The court clarified that the ruling does not pass judgment on the merits of the underlying cyber crime investigation, leaving authorities free to proceed according to the law if further evidence of wrongdoing emerges.
