CWP-11519-202 IN TH Sandeep Kumar Union of India & CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. Mr. *** JAGMOHAN B 1. The the Constitution de-freeze his ban 2. Lear bank has frozen information, the He is not involve to financial fraud the tune of ₹8580 of Magistrate u (‘BNSS’) with re amount. 3. Lear Bank has acted u 2026 -1- N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGAR CW Dat umar Versus ndia & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGM Mr. Pankaj Bains, Advocate, for the Mr. Nitin Thatai, Avocate (through V *** AN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petit itution of India is seeking direct bank account maintained with HDF Learned counsel for the petitioner frozen petitioner’s account without n, the bank has acted upon directions o nvolved in any criminal activity. He is l fraud, if any, committed by unknow 8580/- which have been alleged to b rate under Section 107 of Bharatiy with respect to his account. The petit Learned counsel for respondent N cted upon directions of Law Enforcem NJAB AND HARYANA GARH CWP-11519-2026 Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents AGMOHAN BANSAL for the petitioner. rough V.C.) for respondent No.2. t petition under Articles 226/227 of direction to respondent No.2 to HDFC Bank. ioner submits that respondent No.2- ithout notice. As per petitioner’s tions of Law Enforcement Agencies. . He is not named in any FIR relating known persons. There are entries to ed to be suspicious. There is no order haratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita e petitioner shall not use suspicious ent No.2 submits that respondent- nforcement Agencies. They have not of 2 to - ner’s cies. ating to order nhita cious - e not VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.13 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-11519-202 received any o involvement of authorities to tak are suspicious in 4. Hea 5. Kera Kerela, 2025 SC must be proport account holder's Section 106 of B dismissed SLP judgment. 6. Bom India, 2025 SCC no power to deb BNSS, and that a 107 of the BNSS 7. Delh Ltd. v. Union of of an entire bank alleged to be p disproportionate holder is neithe investigation. Th recording or com 2026 -2- any order from Magistrate. They nt of petitioner in the commission to take impugned action. As per their ous in petitioner’s account. Heard the parties and perused the rec Kerala High Court in Headstar 5 SCC OnLine Ker 3546 has held t roportionate, reasoned, and supporte older's involvement in the alleged o 6 of BNSS cannot be attached. The SLP being SLP (Cri.) No.13433/ Bombay High Court in Kartik Yo SCC OnLine Bom 4778 has held tha to debit freeze or attach a bank acco that any such action can be taken on BNSS upon orders of the competent M Delhi High Court in Neelkant n of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1 e bank account merely on account of a be proceeds of cyber fraud having ionate and arbitrary exercise of power, neither an accused nor even a su on. The Court emphasized that su or communicating any reasons, resul They have no knowledge about ission of offence which prompted r their information, entries of ₹8580/- record. tar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of held that freezing of bank accounts pported by material indicating the eged offence. Bank account under d. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has 433/2025 filed against aforesaid Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of eld that an Investigating Agency has k account under Section 106 of the ken only in accordance with Section ent Magistrate. lkanth Pharma Logistics (P) el 1055 has observed that freezing nt of a small and identifiable amount having been credited therein, is a power, particularly when the account a suspect in the offence under at such blanket freezing, without , results in grave civil and financial bout pted - of ounts the nder t has esaid of y has f the ction (P) ezing ount is a unt nder thout ncial VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.13 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-11519-202 consequences, i cheques and se livelihood. Innoc merely because p accounts, unless such funds. 8. From evident that no attachment under respondent has f suspicious. Clai Accordingly, res within one week 9. As utilized by him. legalize any act involved in the c in force. 10. Disp 13.05.2026 Vimal Wh Wh 2026 -3- ces, including disruption of busine nd severe hardship, and directly Innocent and unwary account holde ause proceeds of crime may have tem unless investigation reveals their com From the perusal of record and a at no FIR has been registered agains t under Section 107 of BNSS has been t has frozen account whereas a sum . Claim of petitioner is genuine a ly, respondent-Bank is directed to d week from today. As conceded by petitioner, the d him. It will remain frozen. It is made y act or omission of the petitioner, the commission of any offence or vio Disposed of in above terms. Whether speaking/reasoned Ye Whether reportable Ye business operations, dishonour of ectly impinges upon the right to t holders cannot be made to suffer ave temporarily passed through their ir complicity or conscious receipt of and arguments of both sides, it is against the petitioner. No order of s been passed by the Magistrate. The a sum of ₹8580/- has been marked uine and deserves to be allowed. d to de-freeze petitioner’s account the disputed amount shall not be s made clear that this order shall not tioner, if at any stage, he is found or violation of provision of any law (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No r of t to uffer their pt of it is er of . The rked wed. ount t be ll not ound y law AL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.13 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.