### Blanket Freeze of Bank Account for Cyber-investigation Is Impermissible; Only Disputed Amount May Be Held in Lien.

The Petitioner, a businessman and transporter, maintains a Savings Account with the Union Bank of India, Mirza Branch

On 11.09.2025, the Petitioner discovered his account was "Frozen"

Upon inquiry, the Bank informed him that a debit freeze was placed following a notice from the Kerala Police under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The freeze originated from a complaint by Mrs. Nissa K.A. regarding a share-trading fraud involving Rs. 26,90,000/-, of which a specific transaction of Rs. 27,500/- was traced to the Petitioner's account

The Petitioner sought to unfreeze the account except for the disputed amount, but the Bank failed to act, prompting this writ petition

1. Whether the Respondent Bank is justified in freezing the entire bank account of the Petitioner when only a specific portion of the funds is allegedly linked to a fraudulent transaction

2. Whether a balance must be struck between the interests of cyber-crime investigation and the fundamental rights of a bona fide account holder

The Court considered Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the attachment and freezing of bank accounts

Blanket freezing of accounts without quantifying amounts is a violation of fundamental rights, specifically Mohammed Saifullah v. Reserve Bank of India

Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasizes balancing the rights of complainants against the hardships of innocent account holders

Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur v. Union of India regarding the statutory application of BNSS provisions during investigations

The Court observed that while cyber fraud investigation is a public necessity, the current practice of freezing an entire account for a nominal disputed amount (Rs. 27,500/- out of a larger operational balance) causes "unwarranted hardships" to legitimate business operations

The court noted that total freezing without prior notice causes immense prejudice to the account holder

It reasoned that the interest of justice and the "menace" of cyber fraud can be balanced by quantifying the disputed amount and restricting the freeze only to that specific sum, thereby allowing the petitioner to access the remaining undisputed funds to carry out his daily livelihood and business

The Court directed: (a) the Respondent Bank to immediately defreeze the Petitioner’s Savings Account (A/C No. 187810100046249); and (b) the Bank to maintain a lien on the specific disputed amount of Rs. 27,500/- until further directions from the investigating authorities

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs