Cyber Crime Cases | 'No Blanket Bank A/C Freezing; Inform Magistrate Within 24 Hours': Allahabad HC Issues Strict 5-Point Protocol For Cops

The Allahabad High Court has held that a blanket notice by the police to the bank to freeze a particular account, without indicating the amount (on which lien is being sought) would be illegal and arbitrary.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla added that investigating Officer is required to intimate the jurisdictional Magistrate about the same within 24 hours.

The Court has also provided that the concerned IO must also inform the banks of the case number that has been registered on basis of which said lien/freezing is sought.

The HC was dealing with a writ petition filed by Khalsa Medical Store through its proprietor, Yashwant Singh.

In this case, the petitioner's Axis Bank account had been completely frozen following a notice issued by the Police Station under Sections 94 and 106 BNSS.

Challenging the said action, the petitioner moved the HC.

In its 11-page order, the Court noted with concern that despite several notices, the Investigating Officer from Telangana failed to appear.

On the other hand, the Counsel for Axis Bank submitted that while they received a notice for a debit freeze in November 2025, they never received a formal seizure order or any indication of the specific amount required to be put in lien.

It was apprised to the bench that despite the bank writing several letters to the IO, no further documents were provided. ​

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that in several of such cases, debit freeze is sought on the entire account of the petitioners without providing to the bank the seizure notice that is required to be issued by the IO.

The Court also noted that the details of cases that have been registered before the court concerned are also not provided to the banks, who in turn, cannot provide it to the persons whose accounts are being frozen / lien being created.

The court relied on Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy reported in (1999) 7 SCC 685, wherein it was clarified that a bank account is indeed 'property' that can be seized u/s 102 CrPC (106 BNSS).

However, the Supreme Court in this case has noted that such seizure is only permissible if the assets have "direct links with the commission of the offence". ​

​Terming the practice of freezing entire accounts as "unjustified and illegal" the Court held: ​

"One may understand a situation wherein there is a requirement for freezing an account for a limited period...However, even in these extreme cases, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to provide the bank within three to four days the seizure order...as well as, provide the amount on which the lien is sought to be created." ​

Against this backdrop, the HC laid down the following 5 principles for freezing a bank account under a suspicion of cyber crime:-

A. Section 106 of BNSS should not be interpreted to empower police officers to intervene in money disputes by seizing property especially based on mere suspicion but it must be bolstered by reasonable belief.

B. Information for freezing the bank account by the investigating officer shall be sent immediately to the nodal officer of the bank of the beneficiary or payment service system, including the payment aggregator, so as to take action at their end. The police officer must furnish information with relation to the alleged crime and should accompany a copy of the FIR or information received. The bank or the payment system operator (PSO) may decline a request, if it is received without a copy of any complaint or FIR.

C. The notice under Section 106 of the BNSS may require to mark lien on a specific amount (money allegedly transferred from or to the bank account of accused), but in no case the police may ask or request any bank or payment system operator (PSO) including payment aggregator, to block or suspend entire financial account.

D. As soon as information to block or put on hold or marking of a lien is forwarded to a bank or any financial intermediary, including a payment system operator (PSO), then the information shall simultaneously be sent to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. Failure to inform may render such an action as void.

E. If any bank puts on hold any bank account or escrow account maintained by any entity / citizen on the request of the police without following the proper procedure, then the bank shall be personally liable for the Civil and Criminal consequences for the loss including financial and reputational damage of such entity / citizen.

Further, noting that in the present case, the IO provided no FIR, no seizure order and no specific amount for the lien, the Court quashed the notice and directed the bank to immediately de-freeze the petitioner's account.

With this, the petition was allowed.

Click Here To Read/Download Order