
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police do not need a magistrate's prior approval to freeze a bank account during investigation, rejecting claims that such a freeze amounts to property attachment…
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police do not need a magistrate's prior approval to freeze a bank account during investigation, rejecting claims that such a freeze amounts to property attachment requiring judicial order. Justice M Nagaprasanna held that Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) gives investigating officers seizure powers including debit freezes, and these operate separately from Section 107's attachment provisions. The court warned that requiring prior approval for every freeze would be "catastrophic" to cybercrime probes, where stolen money moves between accounts in seconds.

Separately, the Allahabad High Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot impose a blanket freeze on accounts when the suspected cybercrime transaction involves a specific amount. It directed that restraint must be proportionate to the suspected proceeds of crime, and ordered banks to de-freeze a Lucknow businessman's accounts beyond the disputed Rs 36,000 while retaining a lien on that amount.

Two high courts have now split on bank freezes. Karnataka says a full freeze is fine during investigation. Allahabad says it must be proportionate, freeze only the disputed money. The Karnataka logic that cybercrime needs speed is real. But so is the Allahabad fear: an innocent person's entire business can be wrecked by a single fraudulent credit of Rs 36,000. The test will be how the Supreme Court reconciles these. Which principle wins, swift investigation or minimal disruption to a citizen's life?
Sources (2): timesofindia.indiatimes.com, hindustantimes.com
This story was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 2 sources.