Police cannot debit-freeze bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS without a Magistrate’s order under Section 107.

The Petitioners, a 65-year-old retired Army officer and his critically ill wife, challenged the imposition of a lien and the subsequent total freezing of their ICICI Bank account.

On 11.07.2025, the account received ₹24,78,950 via RTGS from a jewelry sale.

On 19.07.2025, a lien of ₹2,02,345 was marked following a cyber-fraud complaint received by the Maharashtra Police.

On 08.12.2025, the bank converted the partial lien into a complete debit freeze for "regulatory reasons" without providing a written statutory order or hearing to the Petitioners.

Whether an investigating agency has the independent power to direct a debit freeze of a bank account under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Whether the blanket freezing of an entire bank account due to a disputed transaction involving a specific, smaller amount is proportionate and legally sustainable.

The Court applied Section 106 and Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

It established that Section 106 empowers police only to seize property for evidentiary purposes, whereas the attachment or freezing of bank accounts as "proceeds of crime" must strictly follow the procedure under Section 107, requiring an order from a competent Magistrate.

The Court relied on *Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* and *Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala*, which hold that freezing must be proportionate, reasoned, and supported by material indicating the account holder’s complicity.

The Court reasoned that the total debit freeze was unsupported by any mandate under Section 107 of the BNSS, as no Magistrate’s approval was produced.

Applying the precedent in *Malabar Gold*, the Court found that while banks may place a lien on a *disputed amount* based on cyber-crime portal alerts (FAQ No. 21 of the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre), they cannot unilaterally freeze the *entire account*.

Since the Petitioners were neither accused nor suspects, and the disputed amount was only a fraction of the total balance, the blanket freeze was deemed a "disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power" that violated the right to livelihood under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

It directed Respondent No. 3 (ICICI Bank) to defreeze the Petitioners' account immediately.

The Court granted the investigating agency liberty to proceed with its investigation in accordance with BNSS provisions, provided they present specific material indicating the Petitioners' complicity.