Shahrukh Ahmad vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3725 of 2026

Shahrukh Ahmad

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. New Delhi And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahmood Alam, Akil Imam, Mayank Dwivedi, Syed Saad Anwar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Manu Dixit

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Mayank Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manu Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.

¶11

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has a saving bank account bearing account number 50100580827789 with the HDFC Bank having its branch at Nakkhas Branch, Chowk, Lucknow. It has further been submitted that certain bonafide and legitimate transactions were credited into the account of the petitioner including the amounts of Rs 3 lakhs and thereafter Rs 5 lakhs from his clients in the ordinary course of business.

¶12

It is further stated that without any opportunity the respondent bank acting upon a communication received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Cyber Crime Portal has imposed a debit freeze upon a total sum of Rs. 5,39,990/- on the aforesaid amount and restraining the petitioner from accessing the aforesaid amount. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that neither any FIR, complaint or seizure order has been supplied to the petitioner nor the fact that any criminal proceedings are pending against him and in the aforesaid circumstances approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to forthwith remove the debit freeze imposed upon sum of Rs 5,39,990/- lying in the aforesaid bank account.

¶13

WRIC No. 3725 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Shri Manu Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent bank has placed before us a copy of the communication received from the Station House Officer, Dongargaon which is in from state of Chhatisgarh wherein the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial order 20. Further it is indicated that an amount of Rs 3 lakh has been deposited in his bank account and other compliant received from the cyber cell indicating that a further amount of Rs 2 lakh also stands deposited in the bank account of the petitioner and it is on account of these two communications that debt freeze has been imposed on the account of the petitioner.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts we find that a similar controversy has engaged the attention of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ C No. 1489 of 2026 in re: Ashish Rawat vs Union of India and others wherein this Court had duly considered the provisions of Sections 106 and 107 BNSS and also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs Anil Kumar Dey, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2753 and other similar judgments and was of the view that the entire amount laying in the bank account of a person is a property which is duly protected under Article 300A of Constitution of India and any deviation from the same can be done only in accordance with law.

¶17

This is in the aforesaid circumstances considering the Standard Operating Procedure / Guidelines formulated by the Government of India final directions were passed in paragraph 55 of the said judgment, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:

¶18

"55. In view of the discussion and findings recorded hereinabove, we deem it necessary to issue the following directions to ensure that the rights of the account holders are protected while the ongoing investigation under Sections 106 and 107 BNSS proceeds:

¶19

55.1 Within week of production of a certified copy of this order, the concerned respondent bank shall place under lien only the amount specified by the investigating officer with respect to all bank accounts, which are subject matter of these petitions and restore the operation of the bank accounts forthwith, thereby making the accounts fully

¶20

WRIC No. 3725 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

operational.

¶23

55.2 The petitioners are at the liberty to approach jurisdictional magistrate wherever the bank account is freezed in non-compliance of the Section 106 of BNSS or even in the event of compliance if they believe that the complete account is required to be defreezed as the allegation leading to the freezing is incorrect or unjustified.

¶24

55.3 The concerned police or investigating agency shall, while issuing any direction to a bank under Section 106 BNSS, clearly specify the amount suspected to be involved in the commission of an offence or alleged to be stolen, which is required to be held or restricted in the concerned account.

¶25

55.4 The concerned bank shall, upon effecting any seizure, freezing, or marking of lien on an account pursuant to such directions, promptly inform the account holder of the same, including the reason of such action and the resultant operational status of the account."

¶26

Accordingly, we see no reasons as to why the order passed by coordinate bench of this Court be not followed in the instant case also.

¶27

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph 55 of the judgement of division bench this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat (supra) .

¶28

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶29

May 7, 2026 J. K. Dinkar

¶30

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shahrukh Ahmad v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh Ahmad v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guljari Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Kamla @ Smt. Kamla Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Monis vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Pandey vs Commissioner Transport Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Harihar Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko an 10 Others

Kamna Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Magistrate Raibareli and 6 Others