Justice Niral R. Mehta, Gujarat High Court
Applicant Not Shown As Accused: Gujarat High Court Asks Bank To De-freeze Account
|The Gujarat High Court was considering a Special Civil Application seeking the de-freezing of the bank account of the applicant.
The Gujarat High Court has ordered the de-freezing of the bank account of an applicant, taking note of the fact that the applicant was not shown to be an accused in any criminal proceedings and the alleged suspicious amount was quantified at Rs 1100 only. The High Court further held that such freezing of the entire account affected his right to livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court was considering a Special Civil Application seeking a direction to de-freeze the bank account of the applicant maintained with the respondent Bank.
The Single Bench of Justice Niral R. Mehta held, “The power of the investigating agency to direct freezing of bank accounts during the course of investigation cannot be disputed. However, such power is required to be exercised in a reasonable, proportionate and lawful manner. The freezing of an entire bank account without specifying the quantum of suspected amount or without establishing the involvement of the account holder in any criminal activity results in undue hardship and adversely affects the fundamental rights of the citizen.”
“In the present case, the applicant is not shown to be an accused in any criminal proceedings and the alleged suspicious amount is quantified at 1,100/- only. Freezing of the entire account, including the applicant's salary and lawful deposits, is disproportionate and results in serious prejudice affecting his right to livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, it added.
Advocate Ronith Joy represented the Petitioner while Advocate Rituraj Singh Chauhan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was holding a savings bank account which was his primary account used for salary, household expenses, rent, EMIs and other day-to-day financial transactions. The said account came to be debit-freezed by the respondent bank pursuant to a communication received from the cyber crime authorities in connection with certain complaints.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that during the course of investigation in certain cybercrime complaints, it had transpired that certain amounts had been transferred through various bank accounts, and the account of the applicant was reflected in the transaction trail. The Bench noted that the alleged suspicious transactions in the present case were limited to Rs 500 and Rs 600, aggregating to Rs 1,100. “However, on account of such limited transactions, the entire bank account of the applicant has been debit-freezed, thereby restricting access not only to the alleged amount but also to the applicant's legitimate earnings and savings”, it added.
Considering that the applicant was not shown to be an accused in any criminal proceedings and the alleged suspicious amount was quantified at Rs 1,100 only, the Bench held that the freezing of the entire account resulted in serious prejudice.
Thus, directing the bank to defreeze the account of the applicant, the Bench ordered, “The respondent bank shall mark a lien to the extent of ₹1,100/- ( 500/- + 600/-) in the said account, which shall remain subject to the outcome of the investigation…”
Cause Title: Arjun Kuruveetil Peethambaran v. The Police Inspector (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:32081)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Ronith Joy
Respondent: Advocates Rituraj Singh Chauhan, CR Abichandani