Can Police Freeze Your Bank Account Without Notice? Allahabad HC Says Yes, If Linked to Suspicious Transaction

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a government school teacher seeking defreezing of her salary account that had been blocked by Bank of Baroda on the directions of the Cyber Crime Branch, Gujarat Police.

The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the bank’s action was lawful, as it was carried out under valid police instructions during an ongoing criminal investigation.

The salary of petitioner Marufa Begum, a Shikshamitra (teacher) employed at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sakhadha, Kaushambi was credited into a savings account maintained with Bank of Baroda, Imamganj Branch. The account was frozen after an amount of Rs. 35,000 was transferred into it from a Federal Bank account in Gujarat on September 1, 2022. The police suspected the transaction was linked to a cybercrime case being probed by the Anand Cyber Crime Branch.

According to the petition, Begum was unaware of the sender, identified as Mustaq Ali, and had no connection with the transaction. After the bank froze her account, she approached the branch and submitted multiple representations explaining her position. She stated that the freeze prevented her from accessing her salary and requested that the account be reopened. The bank, however, refused to act without clearance from the investigating agency.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Advocates Anoop Kumar Sharma and Vikas Rastogi, argued that freezing her account without prior notice or opportunity to be heard was arbitrary and had caused financial hardship. It was submitted that the credit in question had nothing to do with any unlawful activity and that the petitioner was being penalised for no fault of her own.

The counsel for Bank of Baroda, Advocate Shailesh Kumar Pande,y defended the action, stating that the account was frozen strictly on instructions from the Cyber Crime Department, Anand, and could not be unfrozen unless the investigating agency or a competent court ordered so. Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state Advocate Pradeep Kumar Shahi also opposed the plea, citing Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which empowers the police to seize or freeze property suspected to be linked to an offence. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372, which upheld the legality of freezing bank accounts during investigation when the prescribed procedure is followed.

After hearing the parties, the court noted that the bank had acted under valid instructions from the investigating agency and that such freezing was permissible when a transaction appeared suspicious to the police.

The bench observed, “In the event police comes to conclude that during investigation a bank account is to be freezed for suspicious transaction, it can always direct the bank to freeze such bank account. And of course, such freezing of the account shall depend upon the outcome of investigation".

Court further clarified that the police officer is only required to report the seizure to the concerned Magistrate and need not seek prior approval before freezing an account. Finding no illegality in the bank’s action, the bench refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

Dismissing the petition, court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the investigating authority or a court of competent jurisdiction for relief, stating that any modification of the freeze order could only be sought before the appropriate forum.

The writ petition was accordingly consigned to records.

Case Title: Marufa Begum vs Union of India and 5 Others

Order Date: October 29, 2025

Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi