In Marufa Begum v. Union of India & Others, WRIT-C No. 37053 of 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J. and Hon’ble Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.) examined whether a bank can freeze the account of a customer based solely on the direction of a cyber-crime police unit, without prior judicial oversight, and whether the continued freezing was justified in the circumstances of the case.
The Court upheld the legality of the action and clarified the scope of police powers under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 102 CrPC) – concerning freezing and seizure of property during investigation.
Facts of the Case
Employment and Bank Account of the Petitioner
The petitioner, Marufa Begum, is a Shikshamitra (teacher) at a primary school (Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sakhadha, Kaushambi). Her salary was regularly credited to her Savings Account of the Bank of Baroda, Imamganj Branch.
The Suspicious Transaction
On 1 September 2022, an amount of ₹35,000 was credited to her account from Account (Federal Bank, Puthiyara Branch, Gujarat).
She did not recognise the sender—one Mustaq Ali.
Freezing of the Account
Soon after the transfer, the petitioner’s account was frozen by Bank of Baroda on instructions from the Anand Cyber Crime Branch, Gujarat Police, which suspected the amount to be linked to a cyber-fraud investigation.
Petitioner’s Representation
The petitioner repeatedly approached the bank, explaining that:
- she did not know the sender,
- she had no connection with the transaction,
- freezing prevented her from accessing her salary.
Issues for Determination
The Court framed two central questions:
- Whether the bank justified in freezing the petitioner’s account based on the direction of the cybercrime police?
- Whether the continued freezing was justified, especially considering the petitioner had opened a new salary account and claimed innocence?
Statutory Framework: Section 106 BNSS
The Court reproduced Section 106 BNSS, which is a verbatim reincorporation of Section 102 CrPC.
Key Points:
- Police may seize (or freeze) any property suspected of being connected with an offence.
- If the officer is subordinate, he must report to the SHO.
- The seizure must be reported forthwith to the Magistrate.
- No prior judicial order is required.
Thus, freezing a bank account falls within police power during an investigation.
Judicial Precedent: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372
The Supreme Court held:
- If an investigating officer has material creating suspicion, he is legally justified in freezing accounts.
- The only requirement is compliance with reporting obligations under Section 102 (now Section 106 BNSS).
- No prior magistrate approval is mandatory.
Court’s Analysis
Legality of Freezing
The Court observed:
- The petitioner’s account was frozen pursuant to directions issued by an investigating authority, which suspected that the credited amount was linked to a cybercrime.
- This satisfied the threshold under Section 106 BNSS.
Thus, the bank acted lawfully in complying with the cyber-crime unit’s request.
Continued Freezing
The Court held:
- Affected persons may seek a remedy after the investigation is concluded, or after a chargesheet is filed, before the competent Magistrate.
- The High Court should not interfere under Article 226 when statutory remedies exist.
- The petitioner may approach the investigating authorities or the Magistrate for relief.
No Grounds for High Court Intervention
The Court found:
- No procedural illegality in the freezing.
- Freezing is part of the investigation.
The petitioner’s grievance, though genuine, must be addressed through statutory mechanisms, not by writ. Allahabad High Court followed this precedent.
Decision
The Court refused to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
Operative Directions:
- The petition is consigned to the records.
- The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the concerned investigating authorities or a competent court.
No relief of de-freezing was granted.
Conclusion
Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Marufa Begum strengthens the legal position that bank accounts can be frozen during investigation without prior judicial permission, provided the police comply with reporting obligations under Section 106 BNSS. While sympathetic to the petitioner’s hardship, the Court emphasised the importance of non-interference in ongoing investigations and directed her to pursue statutory alternatives.
This judgment reinforces a crucial principle in cybercrime investigations:
financial trails are central to uncovering fraud, and freezing accounts is a legitimate investigative tool, even if inconvenient for innocent account holders. The remedy lies in approaching the appropriate authority—not in invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams