Saleem Ahmed Vs Union of India & Ors.

¶1

$~71

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1131/2026 SALEEM AHMED

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Praful Nawani, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber CGSC with Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Ms. Arani Mukherjee, Mr. Yashu Rustagi Advocates for R1 Adv. Akshay Gola for R3

¶9

%

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R 11.03.2026

¶11

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶12

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 2 to remove the ‘No-Debit freeze’ and forthwith release the bank account of the Petitioner, without any further restrictions;

¶13

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No. 3 to provide a copy of the complaint based upon which the complete freeze was imposed on the bank account of the Petitioner;

¶14

c) In the alternative, direct Respondent No. 3 to mark a lien

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶17

only to the extent of the specific disputed amount and release the remaining balance for the Petitioner's medical treatment; d) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the instructions issued by Respondent No. 2 (J&K Police) directing the debit freeze of the Petitioner's account, as being violative of Sections 106/107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;

¶18

e) Direct Respondent No. 1 to produce the report submitted to the Magistrate under Section 106(3) BNSS, if any, and explain the delay of 18 months in the investigation; . . .”

¶19

Mr. Nawani, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is the owner of a small-scale eatery business / dhaba at E- 39/1A, Main Road, 3^rd Pushta, Jagjeet Nagar Garhi, Main, North East District and is compliant with all licenses and also has a valid health trade license issued from the MCD.

¶20

The only account of the petitioner i.e. A/c No. 158800817816 was put under no-debit freeze. The order was a blanket order covering the entire balance which is about Rs. 3,10,000/-.

¶21

Since the account of the petitioner is under no-debit freeze till today, the present petition has been filed.

¶22

Mr. Nawani, learned counsel draws my attention to the affidavit of the respondent No.3 and more particularly paragraphs 2 and 3 which read as under:-

¶23

“2. It is submitted that the Petitioner is holding an Account bearing number 158800817816 with Respondent No. 03 i.e. IndusInd Bank Ltd. at Sadar Bazar Branch, Delhi. It is submitted that Respondent Bank received a request from

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶26

Jammu & Kashmir Baramulla Police Station vide Acknowledgment no. 21407240004845 on NCRP Portal for freezing the account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Answering Respondent had also received request from Maharashtra Brihan Mumbai City Shahu Nagar on NCRP Portal vide Acknowledgement No. 21907240063702 for freezing of the account. It is stated that acting upon the notice received from Respondent No. 02 and Maharashtra Brihan Mumbai City Shahu Nagar Police Station, Answering Respondent Bank has mark freeze the said account of the Petitioner. Screenshot of NCRP Portal reflecting the Notice received from Jammu & Kashmir Baramulla Police Station and Maharashtra Brihan Mumbai City Shahu Nagar Police Station is annexed herewith as Annexure-B (Colly).

¶27

3. That the Answering Respondent Bank respectfully states that it has, on multiple occasions, communicated, to the Petitioner that the Petitioner's account has been marked freeze strictly in accordance with the directions received from Respondent No. 02 and Maharashtra Brihan Mumbai City Shahu Nagar Police Station. The Answering Respondent has neither initiated such action on its own nor has any discretion to unilaterally reverse it. The account in question can be unfreeze only if the Petitioner obtains No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) from concerned competent authority. It is submitted that the Answering rcspondent is merely acting in compliance with the notice issued by the Authorities and has no independent role in

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶30

the underlying matter.”

¶31

He also draws my attention to the instructions received from the respondent No.2 and Maharashtra Brihan Mumbai Shahu Nagar which are also reproduced as under:-

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶35

A perusal of the instructions received from Maharashtra Brihan Mumbai City shows that the disputed amount vis-à-vis the petitioner is only Rs. 3200/- and by the respondent No.2 is only Rs. 130/-.

¶36

My attention has also been drawn to the order dated 13.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 19137/2025 titled as “Yadhuvir Singh Manhas vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ors.” and more particularly to the paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 which read as under:-

¶37

“6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) SCC OnLine Del 8936 and more particularly on paragraphs 24 to 27 which read as under:“ 24. The petitioner is a small-scale vendor, engaged in sale of food items and dependent on his daily earnings to sustain his family.

¶38

25. Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶39

26. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed.

¶40

27. Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶43

account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable, at the moment.”

¶44

8. The power to freeze a bank account, though undoubtedly available, is a drastic one and must, therefore, be exercised with due application of mind and for cogent reasons, which ought to be reflected, at least briefly, in the communication directing such freezing. Any other approach would be antithetical to the principles of fairness and reasonableness that are ingrained in our Constitution. Merely because the respondent No.1 has some apprehensions of mismatch will not be a reason to put a freeze on the petitioner’s account.

¶45

10. At this juncture it is also important to refer to the following observations passed in Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055.

¶46

“14. Investigating Agency is fully empowered to conduct investigation, and can also, under appropriate circumstances, send request to the concerned bank, directing freezing of the entire account.

¶47

15. However, when it resorts to above, it must assign reasons.

¶48

16. Such discretion vests with investigating agency, its better left to them to decide as to when such blanket freezing needs to be ordered. However, once it chooses to do so, it must offer some justification. Such blanket measure, if taken recourse to, without

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶51

offering any reason, can certainly play havoc with the financial concerns of such account holders. In relation to small-time vendors, it can disrupt prospects of their mere existence, even. It is not difficult to imagine that any such action can put their lives in a complete disarray.

¶52

17. Therefore, possibility of marking a lien on disputed amount, whenever it is identifiable, should be explored as a more appropriate interim measure. Ideally, it should be the first and foremost option. This would, naturally, mitigate the undue hardship being caused on account of blanket freezing of account and would also ensure that the alleged cheated money remains secured and intact.

¶53

22. In light of the frequent filing of such matters concerning blanket freezing of the accounts, this Court feels that Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India should take proactive steps to address the same. It may consider consulting all concerned stakeholders, including respective States/UTs and then, with consensus of everyone, to chalk-out a uniform policy, standard operating procedures and guidelines to ensure that such matters are handled with requisite consideration and compassion. The aim should be to balance the rights of a complainant in any such criminal investigation vis-a-vis the right of innocent and unwary account-holder, made to face unwarranted hardship on account of blanket freezing of account, despite being completely innocent and unaware of commission of any crime.”

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶56

11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the freeze instructions impugned herein, insofar as they operate as a blanket freeze on the petitioner’s entire savings account, are set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to defreeze the petitioner’s Savings Account No. 7345482270, subject to the condition that the following sums amounting to 1 ,63,185.81 on which lien has been created by Respondent No. 1 subject to receiving notices from various police authorities as enumerated below, shall remain under lien/hold. The lien on amount for which no reasons have been provided shall not be put on hold.

¶57

(i) Bihar (Munger/Dharhara) : ₹ 38,186.82

¶58

(ii) Tamil Nadu (Kancheepuram) : ₹ 35,000.00

¶59

(iii) Haryana (Kaithal) : ₹ 40,000.00

¶60

(iv) Delhi (Outer North District) : ₹ 49,999.00

¶61

Subtotal of explained liens : ₹ 1,63,185.82

¶62

(v) Additional unexplained lien : approximately ₹ 8,209.81

¶63

(vi) Total hold / lien as per bank statement (30.11.2025) : ₹ 1,71,395.63

¶64

12. The petitioner shall be permitted to freely operate the remaining balance in the said account. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the investigating agencies from taking recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.”

¶65

Since the disputed amount comes to only Rs. 3330/-, it is directed that there shall be a debit freeze on the said amount only.

¶66

The petitioner shall be permitted to freely operate the remaining balance in his bank account No. 158800817816 maintained with the

¶67

This is a digitally signed order.

¶68

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

¶69

respondent No.3.

¶70

With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶71

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶72

MARCH 11, 2026 / (MS)

¶73

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:11:55

Saleem Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Similar cases

Ms. Anita Esmaeilzadeh Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Reshma Bano Qureshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated Nicsi

Nilesh Vishnu Jagtap Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sushma Pardesi Vs DDA & Ors.

Smt.Pummy Jasneet Kaur Anand Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Manohar Filaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Premium Payments Solutions Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1), Delhi, & Ors.

Dr. Kritika Anand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Divya Chaudhary Mother of the Minor Inesh Vs Directorate of Education Ors. & Ors.

Bardhan Pvt. Iti & Anr. Vs Directorate General of Training & Anr.

Ankit Yadav Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Prachi Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority

Indraprashta Gas Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.