Introduction
Bank account freezing, especially by cyber cells, has created significant hardship for many account holders in India. In the Punit Ojha v. State Bank of India case, the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed the principle that freezing entire bank accounts without due process is illegal and disproportionate.
This ruling adds to the growing body of judicial decisions in Rajasthan that balance the rights of individuals with the needs of investigation agencies.
⸻
🧾 Case Details
• Case Title: Punit Ojha v. State Bank of India
• Date of Judgment: 17 January 2025
• Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench
• Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
• Petitioner: Punit Ojha
• Respondent: State Bank of India / HDFC Bank
• Issue: Account frozen over ₹510 involved in a suspected fraudulent transaction
⸻
🧑⚖️ Legal Issue
Was it lawful for the bank/cyber cell to freeze the entire account of the petitioner for a suspicious amount of only ₹510, without following due process under Section 102 of the CrPC?
⸻
⚖️ Court’s Observation
The Hon’ble Court held that:
• Freezing the entire account balance when only ₹510 was under suspicion is grossly disproportionate.
• The right to operate one’s bank account is protected under personal liberty, and cannot be taken away mechanically.
• Section 102(3) CrPC was not complied with – the investigating authority did not inform the Magistrate as required.
• Investigating agencies must show urgency and necessity, and not act arbitrarily when seizing or freezing property.
⸻
📝 Final Judgment
• The Rajasthan High Court quashed the account freeze notice.
• Directed that only ₹510 be kept frozen.
• Allowed the petitioner full operating rights for the rest of the account.
• Directed that the investigation must continue without creating financial hardship.
⸻
🔍 Legal Takeaways
✅ CrPC Section 102 compliance is mandatory
✅ Proportionality principle must be followed – Freeze only the amount under investigation
✅ Courts protect financial rights unless fraud is established with evidence
✅ Cyber police must act transparently and avoid overreach
⸻
📚 Legal Provisions Cited
• Section 102(3), CrPC – Police must inform Magistrate after seizing any property (including bank accounts).
• Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to livelihood and property is protected under the right to life.
⸻
🔗 Related Judgments
• Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan (2025)
• [Sandeep Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan (2025)] – Similar relief granted
⸻
📞 Need Help With Frozen Bank Accounts?
If your account is frozen without due notice or valid reason:
🧑⚖️ Advocate Adarsh Singhal
Cyber Crime Lawyer | Rajasthan High Court
📞 +91-8952090299
📧 advadarshsinghal@gmail.com | contact@advocateadarsh.com