M/S Ram Ban Jewels vs Union Of India And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Ram Ban Jewels vs Union Of India And Others on 28 April, 2026

             CWP-11588-2026                                  -1-

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH

             123                                                   CWP-11588-2026
                                                                   Date of Decision: 28.04.2026

             M/s Ram Ban Jewels                                                      ...Petitioner

                                                         Versus


             Union of India and others                                              ...Respondents


             CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
             Present: -             Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate and
                                    Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner
                                    Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India
                                    (through video conferencing) with
                                    Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
                                    for Union of India-respondent No.1
                                    Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2
                                    ***

             JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No.2 to de-freeze its bank account maintained with respondent No.2-Punjab National Bank.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2-bank has frozen petitioner's account without notice. As per petitioner's information, the bank has acted upon directions of law enforcement agencies. Petitioner's proprietor is not involved in any criminal activity. She is not named in any FIR relating to financial fraud, if any, committed by unknown persons. There is no order of Magistrate under Section 107 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS') with respect to petitioner's account.

2026.04.28 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

3. Reply filed by respondent No.2 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent- Bank has acted upon directions of law enforcement agencies. They have not received any order from Magistrate. They have no knowledge about involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence which prompted authorities to take impugned action.

5. Heard the parties and perused the record.

6. Kerala High Court in Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerela, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546 has held that freezing of bank accounts must be proportionate, reasoned, and supported by material indicating the account holder's involvement in the alleged offence. Bank account under Section 106 of BNSS cannot be attached. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP being SLP (Cri.) No.13433/2025 filed against aforesaid judgment.

7. Bombay High Court in Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778 has held that an Investigating Agency has no power to debit freeze or attach a bank account under Section 106 of the BNSS, and that any such action can be taken only in accordance with Section 107 of the BNSS upon orders of the competent Magistrate.

8. Delhi High Court in Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055 has observed that freezing of an entire bank account merely on account of a small and identifiable amount alleged to be proceeds of cyber fraud having been credited therein, is a disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power, MOHIT KUMAR 2026.04.28 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

particularly when the account holder is neither an accused nor even a suspect in the offence under investigation. The Court emphasized that such blanket freezing, without recording or communicating any reasons, results in grave civil and financial consequences, including disruption of business operations, dishonour of cheques and severe hardship, and directly impinges upon the right to livelihood. Innocent and unwary account holders cannot be made to suffer merely because proceeds of crime may have temporarily passed through their accounts, unless investigation reveals their complicity or conscious receipt of such funds.

9. From the perusal of record and arguments of both sides, it is evident that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner. No order of attachment under Section 107 of BNSS has been passed by the Magistrate. Claim of petitioner is genuine and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, respondent-Bank is directed to de-freeze petitioner's account within one week from today.

10. It is made clear that this order shall not legalize any act or omission of the petitioner, if at any stage, it is found involved in the commission of any offence or violation of provision of any law in force.

11. Disposed of in above terms.

                                                                       (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                                              JUDGE
             28.04.2026
             Mohit Kumar
                                     Whether speaking/reasoned     Yes/No
                                     Whether reportable            Yes/No




MOHIT KUMAR
2026.04.28 14:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.