An entire bank account cannot be frozen when the lien concerns only a specific amount.

The petitioner, a small businessman operating a proprietorship, challenged the debit-freeze of his Axis Bank account following a notice dated 8 May 2025 from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tambaram Commissionerate, under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The notice concerned one transaction and directed a lien over a disputed sum of Rs. 2,253, but the entire account was frozen.

The petitioner said he had received no communication from the investigating officer despite seeking details and requesting release of the account; the Bank stated it required an order from the competent authority to unfreeze it.

The investigating officer did not appear, although service of the petition and notice of its pendency were recorded.

Whether the entire bank account could remain debit-frozen when the police notice concerned a specific transaction and directed a lien over only Rs. 2,253.

Whether the account should be de-frozen while retaining a lien over the disputed amount.

The Court noted that the police notice invoked Section 106 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The judgment did not undertake a detailed interpretation of either provision or rely on any precedent.

Its reasoning was that, in the circumstances of this case, a direction to lien-mark a specific disputed amount did not justify freezing the account in its entirety where the disputed sum was only Rs. 2,253.

The notice identified a particular transaction and specified the amount to be lien-marked, while the Bank had frozen the petitioner’s entire account.

The Court found no apparent rationale for the wider restriction and noted that the investigating officer had neither responded to the petitioner’s communications nor appeared before the Court.

Given that the disputed amount was Rs. 2,253, the Court considered a full-account freeze unjustified and concluded that preserving a lien over that sum would address the stated concern without preventing the petitioner from operating the rest of the account.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the Court clarified that, as no affidavit-in-opposition had been called for, the petition’s allegations were not deemed admitted.