Ankur Gupta v. Union Of India And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-12692-2026 Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 ANKUR GUPTA

...Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate and Ms. Lavika Gupta, Advocate (through V.C.) For petitioner Mr. Satya Pal Jain, A.S.G. (through V.C.) with Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel For respondent No.1 - U.O.I.

Mr. Saurav Goel, Advocate For respondent No.2 - Bank *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking directions to de-freeze his Bank Account maintained with respondent No.2 - Utkarsh Small Finance Bank. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondentBank has frozen petitioner's account without notice. As per petitioner's information, the Bank has acted upon directions of Law Enforcement Agencies. He is not involved in any criminal activity. He is not named in any FIR relating to financial fraud, if any, committed by unknown persons. There is no order of Magistrate under Section 107 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS') with respect to his account. Suspicious amount may be retained.

-23.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Bank has acted upon directions of Law Enforcement Agencies. They have not received any order from Magistrate. They have no knowledge about involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence which prompted authorities to take impugned action. As per their information, entry of ₹8,600/- is suspicious in petitioner's account.

4.

Heard the parties and perused the record.

5.

Kerala High Court in Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerela, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546 has held that freezing of Bank accounts must be proportionate, reasoned, and supported by material indicating the account holder's involvement in the alleged offence. Bank account under Section 106 of BNSS cannot be attached. The Supreme Court has dismissed SLP being SLP (Criminal) No.13433/2025 filed against aforesaid judgment. 6.

Bombay High Court in Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778 has held that an Investigating Agency has no power to debit freeze or attach a Bank account under Section 106 of the BNSS, and that any such action can be taken only in accordance with Section 107 of the BNSS upon orders of the competent Magistrate. 7.

Delhi High Court in Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055 has observed that freezing of an entire Bank account merely on account of a small and identifiable amount alleged to be proceeds of cyber fraud having been credited therein, is a disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power, particularly when the account holder is neither an accused nor even a suspect in the offence under investigation. The Court emphasized that such blanket freezing, without recording or communicating any reasons, results in grave civil and financial

-3consequences, including disruption of business operations, dishonour of cheques and severe hardship, and directly impinges upon the right to livelihood. Innocent and unwary account holders cannot be made to suffer merely because proceeds of crime may have temporarily passed through their accounts, unless investigation reveals their complicity or conscious receipt of such funds.

8.

From the perusal of record and arguments of both sides, it is evident that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner. No order of attachment under Section 107 of BNSS has been passed by the Magistrate. The respondent has frozen account whereas a sum of ₹8,600/- has been marked suspicious. Claim of petitioner is genuine and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, respondent-Bank is directed to de-freeze petitioner's account within 1 week.

9.

As conceded by petitioner, the disputed amount i.e. ₹8,600/- shall not be utilized by him. It will remain frozen. It is made clear that this order shall not legalize any act or omission of the petitioner, if at any stage, he is found involved in the commission of any offence or violation of provision of any law in force.

10.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms. 11.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 29.05.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No