[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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.
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,
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
