The Allahabad High Court on October 29, 2025 declined the petition to direct the defreezing of a bank account that had been blocked following a suspicious credit. Justices Swarupama Chaturvedi and Ajit Kumar observed that the bank had acted pursuant to directions issued by the Cyber Crime Department and that the police had exercised their authority under Section 106 of BNSS to freeze property that may be linked to an offence.
The petitioner was a teacher or Shikshamitra posted in Kaushambi district who challenged the freezing of her savings account with Bank of Baroda, Imamganj Branch. She explained that her salary was credited into that account and that it was unexpectedly blocked following a suspicious transfer of ₹35,000 on 01.09.2022 from a Federal Bank account in Gujarat belonging to one Mustaq Ali. Although she contended that she had no knowledge or connection with the said individual and repeatedly approached the respondent bank requesting that her account be defrozen, her account stood frozen. The counsel of the bank argued that the freezing was done on directions of the Cyber Crime Department, Anand (Gujarat), and that the account could not be released without instructions from the investigating authority or a court order. The prosecution contended that the action was taken in accordance with Section 106 of the BNSS 2023 which allowed a police officer to seize any property suspected to be stolen or connected with an offence during an ongoing investigation. and relied on Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372, which permitted such freezing during an ongoing investigation if the procedure prescribed under Section 106 was followed.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s account had been frozen based on directions from the investigating authorities in connection with a suspicious transaction, and the bank had acted on the investigative communication. The Court regarding theSection 106 BNSS and the Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372 ruling, stated that police have power to seize or freeze property, including bank accounts, suspected to be connected to an offence, without requiring a prior order of the Magistrate, provided the seizure is duly reported.It also observed that the continued freezing would depend on the outcome of the investigation and that the petitioner could seek redressal before the investigating agency or competent court for defreezing or limitation of the freeze depending on investigation progress. Accordingly, the Court declined relief and disposed of the petition with liberty to pursue available legal remedies.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s) : Anoop Kumar Sharma, Vikas Rastogi
For the Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anadi Krishna Narayana, C.S.C
