The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere in a writ petition challenging the freezing of a bank account pursuant to instructions from the Cyber Crime Department. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held that under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., the police are empowered to seize property suspected to be connected to an offence without seeking a prior order from a Magistrate.
Case Background
The petitioner, Marufa Begum, employed as a Shikshamitra at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sakhadha, District Kaushambi, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Bank of Baroda to de-freeze her savings account.
The petitioner submitted that on September 1, 2022, an amount of Rs. 35,000 was credited to her account from a Federal Bank account in Gujarat. Subsequently, her account was frozen. Upon inquiry, bank officials informed her that the funds were transferred by one Mustaq Ali and that the Anand Cyber Crime Branch, Gujarat Police, had directed the bank to block the account in connection with the transaction.
The petitioner contended that she neither knew the sender nor had any concern with the alleged transaction and had requested the bank to de-freeze her salary account.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was unaware of the source of the funds and requested the court to permit the withdrawal of the amount. It was emphasized that the petitioner is a government employee (Shikshamitra) and the freezing of the salary account caused undue hardship.
Respondent’s Submissions: Conversely, the panel counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the account was frozen on the instructions of the Cyber Crime Department, Anand, Gujarat. It was argued that the bank could not de-freeze the account without prior approval from the investigating agency or a competent court order, as the account in question was considered “property” under investigation.
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State opposed the petition, relying on Section 106 of the BNSS (Section 102 Cr.P.C.). He cited the Supreme Court judgment in Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372, arguing that if the investigating officer follows the prescribed procedure, the freezing of the account is legally justified.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court observed that the facts were not in dispute regarding the freezing of the account pursuant to directions from investigating authorities concerning a suspicious transaction.
The central question before the Court was whether the bank was justified in freezing the account and whether such continued freezing was legal.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Teesta Atul Setalvad, the Bench noted that an Investigating Officer in possession of material creating suspicion of the commission of an offence can legitimately seize bank accounts after following the procedure prescribed.
Analyzing the statutory provision, the Court reproduced Section 102 Cr.P.C., now reincorporated as Section 106 BNSS. The Bench observed:
“From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that a police officer is entitled to seize property of accused persons during investigation by passing orders and the only duty is to report such seizure to Magistrate concerned. There is no obligation cast upon police to seek prior order from Magistrate for seizure of property.”
The Court further stated that if the police conclude during an investigation that a bank account must be frozen due to suspicious transactions, they can direct the bank to do so. The freezing depends on the outcome of the investigation.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the respondent-Bank had acted in accordance with the law in freezing the petitioner’s account based on the request from the Cyber Crime Department.
Refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court held:
“If the petitioner is aggrieved by freezing and wants to get her account defreezed, it is open to her to approach the investigating authorities or a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief in accordance with law…”
The writ petition was accordingly consigned to records with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail legal remedies available to her.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Marufa Begum Vs. Union Of India And 5 Others
- Case No: WRIT-C No. 37053 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
- Date of Order: October 29, 2025
- Counsel for Petitioner: Vikas Rastogi, Anoop Kumar Sharma
- Counsel for Respondents: A.S.G.I., Anadi Krishna Narayana, C.S.C., Shailesh Kumar Pandey
