Unjustified freezing of bank accounts without FIR or evidence of complicity violates Articles 19 and 21.

The Petitioner, Tushar Verma, maintains a savings account with HDFC Bank (Respondent No. 3). Following a receipt of funds from his brother in November 2024, Respondent No. 3 placed a lien on the account in January 2025 based on a complaint from the Cyber Police Station, Vadodara (Respondent No. 2).

By April 2025, the freeze was extended to the entire balance.

Neither an FIR nor a summons was issued against the Petitioner, nor was he arrayed as a suspect.

The Petitioner’s application for relief before the Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on 30.04.2025, leading to the present writ petition seeking a mandamus for unfreezing the account.

1. Whether the prolonged freezing of a bank account by an investigative agency, in the absence of an FIR, summons, or judicial order, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the act of "debit freezing" an account holder who is not an accused or suspect violates fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

The Court primarily applied the constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or carry on trade) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the precedent set in Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 4198/2025), which established that blanket or disproportionate freezing of accounts of non-suspects is manifestly arbitrary and results in punitive consequences without legal complicity.

The Court observed that despite service of notice, the investigating agency (Respondent No. 2) failed to provide any justification or material connecting the Petitioner to any offence.

The Court reasoned that a bank account is essential to an individual’s "economic existence," and freezing it without an FIR or a court order constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power.

Applying the principle from Malabar Gold, the Court found that since the Petitioner was neither named as an accused nor summoned, the continued seizure was "uncalled for" and "wholly arbitrary".

The Court emphasized that such "indiscriminate debit freezing" paralyzes day-to-day operations and breaches constitutional safeguards when no evidence of complicity is produced.

The Court allowed the petition and directed Respondent No. 3 (HDFC Bank) to immediately defreeze the Petitioner’s bank account.

The Petitioner was further directed to cooperate with any future investigation or inquiry by the concerned agency.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.