2026:UHC:310 Judgement Delivered on: 08.01.2026 Judgement Reserved on:12.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1489 of 2025 Mukesh Gaur and Others ......Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others …..Respondents Presence: For the Applicants: Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder. For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned Advocate. For the Respondent No. 5: Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the applicants invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order/direction issued by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, whereby the bank accounts of the applicants were placed under debit freeze and their operation was restrained. The applicants further seek consequential relief for de-freezing of the said bank accounts and restoration of their normal operation, contending that the impugned bank action is arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law. 2. The application arises out of proceedings connected with FIR No. 462 of 2022, registered at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, in which a charge-sheet has already been submitted and the matter is presently pending trial. The applicants assert that despite completion of 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 investigation and pendency of the case before the competent court, the bank accounts continue to remain frozen on the basis of communications acted upon by the Branch Manager, causing serious financial hardship to them. It is in this backdrop that the applicants have approached this Court seeking exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 3. The facts, in brief, as borne out from the record, are that FIR No. 462 of 2022 was lodged at Police Station Jwalapur, Haridwar, on the complaint of one Vinod Kumar Goswami, alleging commission of offences relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and other allied offences in connection with certain financial and property transactions. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer addressed communications to Punjab National Bank requesting that certain savings bank accounts standing in the names of the applicants be placed under debit freeze, on the ground that the funds deposited therein were alleged to be connected with the transactions forming the subject matter of the FIR. 4. Acting upon such communications, the Branch Manager of the concerned branch of Punjab National Bank issued directions placing the accounts of the applicants under debit freeze, thereby restraining their operation. The record further reflects that the investigation in the aforesaid FIR culminated in submission of a charge-sheet, and the case is now pending as Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2024 before the competent court at Haridwar. 5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants moved applications before the trial court seeking de-freezing of their bank accounts, asserting ownership over the funds and pleading personal hardship. However, the prayer for de-freezing was not allowed, and the accounts continued to remain under restraint. The applicants thereafter 2 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 addressed representations and pursued remedies, but the debit freeze remained operative on the basis of the bank’s order/direction. 6. Aggrieved by the continued restraint and alleging that the Branch Manager had no authority to maintain the freeze in the absence of any subsisting judicial order, the applicants have filed the present application seeking quashing of the order/direction of the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank and consequential de-freezing of their bank accounts. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the entire grievance in the present application arises from the order/direction issued by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank whereby the applicants’ bank accounts were placed under debit freeze and their operation was restrained. 9. It was contended that the Branch Manager acted mechanically on the basis of police communications and without any subsisting judicial order authorising such restraint. Learned counsel argued that once the investigation in FIR No. 462 of 2022 had culminated in submission of the charge-sheet and the matter stood pending before the trial court, the bank could not continue to deny the applicants access to their own funds merely on the strength of past police correspondence. According to the applicants, the bank action amounts to an arbitrary interference with their proprietary and financial rights and is wholly unsustainable in law. 10. It was further submitted that the applicants are the lawful account holders and owners of the funds lying in the said accounts, which were deposited through lawful banking instruments. Learned counsel emphasised that no order of attachment, seizure or confiscation has been passed by any competent court declaring the said amounts to be case property. 3 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 11. It was urged that in the absence of any such judicial determination, continuation of debit freeze by the bank is illegal and violative of settled principles governing restraint on bank accounts. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the fact that the applicants had approached the trial court seeking de-freezing of the accounts and highlighted the serious personal hardship being suffered by them, particularly having regard to their age and medical condition. On these premises, it was contended that the continuation of the debit freeze serves no lawful purpose and that this Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the Branch Manager’s order and direct de-freezing of the accounts. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the bank accounts in question were placed under debit freeze in connection with a serious criminal case involving allegations of cheating, misappropriation and unlawful financial gain. 13. It was contended that during investigation, material had emerged indicating that the funds deposited in the applicants’ accounts were directly linked to the transactions forming the subject matter of the FIR, and therefore preservation of the said funds was necessary in the interest of justice. 14. Learned State counsel submitted that the Branch Manager did not act independently or arbitrarily, but merely complied with communications issued by the Investigating Officer in discharge of statutory duties. 15. Learned State counsel further argued that the mere filing of the charge-sheet does not automatically render the protective measures taken during investigation illegal or redundant. It was submitted that the question whether the amounts lying in the applicants’ accounts constitute 4 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 proceeds of crime or case property is a matter to be determined during trial, and until such determination, the restraint on operation of the accounts cannot be said to be unlawful. 16. The State also submitted that the applicants have an efficacious alternative remedy before the trial court to seek appropriate orders for release or partial release of funds on justified grounds, and that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS is misconceived. It was contended that no case of abuse of process or manifest illegality has been made out so as to warrant interference by this Court. 17. Learned counsel for the private respondent adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and further contended that de-freezing of the accounts at this stage would seriously prejudice the State’s case. It was argued that if unrestricted access to the funds is granted, there is a real possibility of dissipation or diversion of the amounts alleged to be connected with the offence. 18. According to the private respondent, the balance of convenience lies in maintaining the status quo and permitting the trial court to decide all issues relating to the bank accounts in accordance with law. 19. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present application essentially concerns the legality of the continued debit-freeze imposed upon the applicants’ bank accounts by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, subsequent to the completion of investigation in FIR No. 462 of 2022. 20. It is not in dispute that the FIR pertains to allegations of cheating and financial impropriety arising out of land and property related transactions, and that during the course of investigation, the investigating 5 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 agency sought preservation of certain bank accounts on the premise that the funds deposited therein were connected with the alleged offence. At the stage of investigation, such a measure cannot be said to be per se impermissible, as preservation of property or funds may be necessary to ensure that the subject matter of the offence is not dissipated or rendered unavailable for the purposes of investigation or trial. 21. However, the record further establishes that the investigation has since culminated in submission of a charge-sheet and the matter is now pending consideration before the competent trial court. With the filing of the charge-sheet, the character of the proceedings undergoes a material change. Thereafter, the authority to regulate, preserve, attach, release or otherwise deal with property alleged to be connected with the offence vests in the court seized of the trial, in accordance with law. 22. This Court finds that the continued debit-freeze of the applicants’ bank accounts, in the absence of any subsisting judicial order directing such restraint, is founded solely upon administrative communications and the consequential action taken by the bank. Such continuation, after completion of investigation, travels beyond the permissible scope of an interim investigative measure and results in an unauthorised restriction on the applicants’ right to operate their accounts. A banking institution cannot, indefinitely and without judicial sanction, deny an account holder access to his or her own funds merely on the basis of past investigative correspondence. 23. While the question whether the amounts lying in the applicants’ accounts constitute proceeds of crime or case property is undoubtedly a matter to be adjudicated during trial, such determination must be made by a competent court upon appreciation of evidence and in accordance with statutory procedure. Until such determination is made, the funds cannot be 6 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 treated as finally attached or confiscated property, nor can an administrative freeze be allowed to operate as a substitute for judicial orders contemplated under law. 24. This Court is conscious of the need to safeguard the interests of the prosecution in cases involving alleged economic offences. At the same time, the law does not countenance indefinite deprivation of access to bank accounts through executive or administrative action alone. The statutory framework provides adequate remedies by empowering the trial court to pass appropriate orders regarding preservation, conditional release or attachment of property, if so warranted. The balance between the rights of the accused and the interest of a fair prosecution must, therefore, be maintained through judicial oversight, and not by prolonged administrative restraint. 25. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order/direction issued by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank has outlived its legal justification and cannot be sustained in the absence of a specific and operative judicial mandate. Permitting such restraint to continue would amount to an impermissible circumvention of the judicial process and would result in manifest injustice. 26. Accordingly, this Court holds that interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is warranted in the present case, while expressly reserving liberty in favour of the prosecution to approach the competent court for appropriate orders in accordance with law, should circumstances so require. ORDER In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove and for the reasons recorded, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under 7 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. 2026:UHC:310 Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order/direction issued by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, whereby the bank accounts of the applicants were placed under debit freeze and their operation was restrained, is hereby quashed. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the trial court from exercising its jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in respect of the said bank accounts or the amounts lying therein, in accordance with law, if so, warranted during the course of the trial. It is further clarified that the prosecution shall remain at liberty to move the competent court for appropriate relief, if circumstances so require. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Ashish Naithani, J. SB 8 Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-528) No. 1489 of 2025-----Mukesh Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others Ashish Naithani J. SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b 3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b 1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C527 96A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F1 8FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.01.08 12:09:01 +05'30'