The Allahabad High Court, comprising a bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar, has ruled that bank accounts of advocates cannot be entirely frozen over suspicious transactions or fees received from clients, clarifying that professional fees do not constitute the “proceeds of crime.” Dealing with the freezing of an advocate’s bank account by the Uttar Pradesh Police Cyber Cell, the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit explaining how police actions against advocates’ accounts will be regulated to prevent interference with the administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The matter arose when the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar Branch in Kanpur, reported that the petitioner’s bank account had been frozen by the Cyber Cell of the Uttar Pradesh Police due to alleged fraudulent transactions. The petitioner, Ayush Bajpai, is a practicing advocate.
The court recorded that the account in question had modest credits, which included a sum of Rs. 20,000 on March 18, 2026, and three separate credits of Rs. 3,700 (one on April 23, 2026, and two other credits on the same date). The total balance in the petitioner’s account stood at Rs. 1,03,071.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner was represented by counsels Archit Mishra and Saurabh Chaturvedi. The respondents, comprising the State of Uttar Pradesh and two others, were represented by the Standing Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court analyzed the issue by first addressing the scope of power of the Cyber Cell in freezing bank accounts. Citing two prior Division Bench decisions of the Court—Khalsa Medical Store through Prop. Yashwant Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India through Governor and 3 others (2026:AHC-LKO:3701-DB) and Marufa Begum Vs. Union of India and 5 others (2025:AHC:190289-DB)—the bench reiterated that:
“on account of a fraudulent transaction the Cyber Cell cannot freeze the entire Bank Account except that which is the proceeds of suspicious transaction or a crime.”
The court then addressed the specific professional status of the petitioner as an advocate. The bench observed that lawyers are entitled to receive professional fees from their clients, regardless of the clients’ legal standing. The court stated:
“An Advocate could be defending an accused who is indeed involved in a big scam or fraud but when fee is remitted by such an accused to his learned Counsel in account the money cannot be said to be proceeds of crime. It is the lawful remuneration of the learned counsel which would be duly earned after the engagement is discharged.”
Expressing concern over the chilling effect such bank freezes could have on the legal profession and the judicial system, the court further observed:
“If for the remittance of any sum of money, an Advocate’s account is frozen describing it as a cyber fraud or the money as proceeds of a cyber fraud or other crime it could become very difficult for Advocates to discharge their professional duties under the Advocates Act. The functioning of the Court itself would be embarrassed.”
However, the court drew a clear distinction for cases where an advocate is personally involved in criminal activities, noting:
“It would be quite a different matter, if an Advocate is himself involved in a criminal offence and has credits of money to his account that are proceeds of his own crime.”
Decision of the Court
The court issued notices to the respondents, directing that steps to serve respondent number 2 be taken by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (R.P.A.D.) by Monday.
The court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to file his own affidavit within two weeks to address the issue, indicating how the seizure of an advocate’s account by police officers is to be handled so as not to interfere with the dispensation of justice in courts.
The respondents were directed to file their counter-affidatvits within two weeks. The court ordered the matter to be listed as fresh on July 17, 2026.
Additionally, the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate this order by next Monday to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and the Cyber Cell, Uttar Pradesh Police, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, as well as to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar Branch, Kanpur, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ayush Bajpai Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case No.: WRITC No. 24589 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar
Date: June 25, 2026
