The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized that there cannot be any discrimination or high handedness in the freezing of bank accounts on the instructions of investigating agencies [Tarkeswar Tiwari v State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others].

A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan is examining the procedure adopted by authorities in relation to the freezing of bank accounts linked to cyber fraud cases.

The Court noted that banks often freeze the accounts without providing much information to the account holders.

“Various writ petitions before us disclose that banks have freezed the bank accounts and when the account holders approach them, they are only informed that the accounts have been freezed on letter either by the Police authorities or the Cyber Crime. However, the said letters till date have not been brought on record in spite of the specific instructions on the previous dates,” the Bench said.

Consequently, the Court has directed the Union government to address such concerns. It added that though various courts have dealt with the issue, procedural anomalies continue to exist.

“We find that Courts have dealt with issues with respect to powers of the Investigating Agencies to examine, under Section 106 of the BNSS; but the issue which is being considered in the present batch of writ petitions, needs to be addressed to settle the said procedural anomaly, for the contingencies under which the bank account are being freezed and which is a necessary step towards ensuring that the banks concerned and the bank account holders, may continue to operate and retain the mutual trust, with their hard-earned money, and the only exception to such a procedure, will be a procedure prescribed by law, with no element of discrimination and element of high handedness,” the Bench said.

In an order passed on February 10, the Court recorded that the Union government has undertaken to address the following issues by way of an affidavit:

(i) The contingency under which an account can be frozen, that is, the procedure prescribed under any Statute, Rules or Regulations. 

(ii) The amount to be frozen shall be specifically indicated in each of said orders, failing which the concerned bank will be at liberty to seek instructions, and then only would they proceed to freeze the account, only to the extent of the amount indicated. 

(iii) As soon as a communication to freeze an account is received by the bank, the bank shall be under an obligation to intimate the same within 24 hours to the bank account holders on his given address or preferred mode of communication. 

(iv) A standard operating protocol dated January 2, 2026 shall also be brought on record, with specific indication as to the procedure, if any, with respect to what should be done prior to freezing of the bank accounts.

The matter will be heard next on February 26.

Advocates Zaheer Asgharm Syed Ahmad Faizan and Malik Juned Ahad appeared for the petitioners.

Senior Counsel SP Singh appeared for the Union of India. 

Advocates Swati Agarwal Srivastava and Abhishek Ahuja appeared for respondents.

[Read Order]