1 CGHC010288892026 2026:CGHC:34708-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 452 of 2026 Rajat Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Induslnd Bank Through The Branch Manager, Induslnd Bank, Mohan Nagar Branch, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Induslnd Bank The Branch Manager, Induslnd Bank Amlidih Branch District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.08.2026 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.07 17:41:33 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Pavas Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the Respondent authorities to quash and set aside the communication/letter bearing No. Police Station dated Padmanabhpur/632/2025 07.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner's Bank Account No. 157566449000 has been directed to be held/frozen. ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to forthwith de- freeze/release the petitioner's Bank Account No. 157566449000 and permit the petitioner to operate the said account without any restriction, unless restrained by a competent order passed in accordance with law. (iii) That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit with regard to this case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the communication dated 07.07.2025 issued by the Station House Officer, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg, whereby the 3 Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank, Mohan Nagar, was directed to furnish the statement of the petitioner’s bank account and to hold/freeze the said account in connection with Crime No.220/2025 registered under Section 420 of the IPC. According to the petitioner, the impugned communication specifically pertains to allegations against one Rajat Kumar Gupta, whereas the petitioner is neither named as an accused nor has any connection with the said crime. It is the petitioner’s case that he is, in fact, an accused in a separate Crime No.221/2025 registered under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in which he and his wife have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The petitioner contends that the action of the respondent authorities in freezing his bank account by referring to an altogether different crime is wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and suffers from complete non-application of mind, thereby illegally depriving him of the use of his bank account and adversely affecting his financial and business activities. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned communication dated 07.07.2025 and consequential reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication dated 07.07.2025 directing the petitioner’s bank account to be held/frozen is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, as it has been issued by referring to Crime No.220/2025 under Section 420 of the IPC, whereas the petitioner is not an accused in the said crime and is, in fact, an accused in a separate Crime No.221/2025 registered 4 under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is contended that the impugned action suffers from complete non- application of mind and has been taken mechanically without verifying the correct facts. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer had no authority to direct freezing of the petitioner’s bank account merely by issuing a communication to the bank, as the procedure prescribed under Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has not been followed. Placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPCR No.231/2026, decided on 15.05.2026), it is argued that attachment or holding of a bank account as proceeds of crime can be effected only by following the procedure under Section 107 of the BNSS through the jurisdictional Magistrate and not at the instance of the Investigating Officer alone. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner and his wife having already been granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.221/2025, the respondent authorities have illegally frozen the petitioner’s bank account by referring to an altogether different crime number, thereby depriving him of access to his legitimate funds without authority of law and violating his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner’s bank account was directed to be held during the course of investigation after it was revealed that 5 the amounts allegedly collected from various complainants on the pretext of securing government employment had been transferred to the petitioner’s IndusInd Bank account bearing No. 157566449000. It is submitted that, apart from Crime No.221/2025, three other criminal cases, namely Crime Nos.286/2025, 143/2026 and 175/2026, involving allegations of cheating and forgery on similar allegations, have also been registered against the petitioner and are presently under investigation. It is further submitted that although the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in Crime Nos.143/2026 and 175/2026, he has neither produced the bail orders before the police nor cooperated with the investigation, and in Crime Nos.221/2025 and 286/2025 he has remained absconding since the date of the incident. Therefore, considering that the petitioner’s bank account allegedly contains the proceeds of the offences under investigation and that all four criminal cases are still pending investigation, the investigating agency was justified in directing the bank to hold the account, and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the petition. 7. Tested on the touchstone of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The record reflects that the 6 petitioner’s bank account was directed to be held during the course of investigation into multiple criminal cases registered against him involving allegations of cheating and forgery. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the amounts allegedly obtained from the complainants were transferred to the petitioner’s bank account. Merely because the impugned communication dated 07.07.2025 mentions Crime No.220/2025 instead of Crime No.221/2025 would not, by itself, render the action of the investigating agency illegal or without jurisdiction, particularly when the respondents have satisfactorily explained that the petitioner’s bank account is under scrutiny in connection with several criminal cases which are still under investigation. The contention regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the BNSS and the reliance placed upon the decision in Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd. cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case, as the investigation is still in progress and the competent authority is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan