p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4063 of 2025 Jayaprakash Dash ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Saroj Kumar Padhy, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 09.03.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in C.T. Case No.1726 of 2024 rejecting his petition for defreezing his bank accounts. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the request of the Police the Petitioner’s accounts bearing A/c. Nos.063705005276 (Current Bank Account), 063701507245 (Saving Bank Account), 063713005664 (Loan Account) and 063713007152 of ICICI Bank, Main Branch Bargarh have been freezed by the I.O. He further Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Mar-2026 17:00:29 Signature Not Verified submits that the Petitioner had approached the Bank Authority to defreeze his bank account. But, the Bank authority did not take any steps to defreeze his aforesaid accounts. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 503 of BNSS before the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh for defreezing his bank accounts. However, the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh has rejected the said petition. 6. It is further contended that freezing of the Petitioner’s bank accounts has been undertaken mechanically and without jurisdiction. The investigating agency has neither quantified nor identified the alleged “tainted amount,” if any, nor has any opportunity been afforded to the Petitioner to explain or clarify the nature of the transaction prior to taking such coercive action. The indiscriminate freezing of the entire accounts has effectively paralysed the Petitioner’s business operations. 7. The impugned action is stated to be a blanket freezing order, passed without identification or segregation of the alleged suspect amount. Such disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power, unaccompanied by procedural safeguards, is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it imposes unreasonable restrictions on lawful commercial activity and deprives the Petitioner of access to its own funds without due process of law. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Mar-2026 17:00:29 Signature Not Verified 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India &Anr.1, wherein it has been held that blanket freezing of accounts is wholly unjustified when the alleged disputed amount is identifiable, and that the appropriate measure is to mark a lien on the specific suspected amount rather than freezing the entire balance. 9. In Pawan Kumar Rai V. Union of India &Anr.2, it was observed that freezing entire bank accounts “has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon the right to earn and live with dignity”, which is a component of Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to livelihood, as held by the Constitution Bench in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation3. Freezing of a business account deprives the Petitioner of its means of livelihood and, therefore, violates its fundamental right. 10. The Kerala High Court in Dr. Sajir v. Reserve Bank ofIndia & Ors.4, held that where the exact amount suspected is known, there is no justification to freeze the entire account, and such actions should be guided by proportionality and fairness. 11. It is further contended that the impugned action of freezing the Petitioner’s bank accounts has neither been preceded by issuance 1W.P.(C) 17905/2024, decided on20.02.2025, 22024 SCCOnLineDel 8936 3AIR 1986 SC 180 42023 SCC OnLine Ker 9087 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Mar-2026 17:00:29 Signature Not Verified of any show-cause notice nor did accompany by any form of judicial oversight. The said action is, thus, alleged to be arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and devoid of procedural sanctity. The Petitioner further submits that in the absence of any demonstrated nexus between the alleged cyber- crime under investigation and the transactions undertaken in course of its lawful business, the freezing of the entire account constitutes a disproportionate and excessive measure. Such action, it is contended, fails to satisfy the constitutional requirements of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality that govern administrative and investigative powers. 12. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court holds that the power of the police to freeze the account under Section 106 BNSS cannot be declared illegal per se. However, freezing the entire accounts of the Petitioner, without identification or quantification of the alleged suspect amount, is disproportionate. The investigative interest can be adequately protected by marking a lien over the specific amount suspected to be connected with the offence. The concerned Investigation Officer, shall within a period of two weeks quantify and communicate the specific amount alleged to be tainted. 13. ICICI Bank, Main Branch Bargarh, shall mark lien to the extent of such quantified amount. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Mar-2026 17:00:29 Signature Not Verified 14. Upon such lien being marked, the remaining balance in the Petitioner’s accounts bearing A/c. Nos.063705005276 (Current Bank Account), 063701507245 (Saving Bank Account), 063713005664 (Loan Account) and 063713007152 shall be permitted to be operated by the Petitioner for lawful business purposes. 15. The Petitioner shall maintain proper accounts and shall not withdraw or transfer the lien-marked amount without leave of the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in C.T. Case No.1726 of 2024 is set aside. 16. The CRLMC is, thus, disposed of in the above terms. 17. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu