Whole Account Frozen Over Rs 560: Rajasthan High Court Lifts Debit Freeze, Keeps Lien Only on Disputed Amount

The petitioner found she could not operate her account with the State Bank of India, Jagatpura, Jaipur and was told it had been frozen; she was shown no FIR or lawful directive implicating her (para 2). The freeze was over an alleged transaction of Rs 560 (para 3). She argued that the freeze was arbitrary and that at most the disputed amount could be restrained; the respondents called it a temporary, lawful investigative measure needed because cyber offences move money fast (paras 3-4).

Freezing a bank account is a legitimate investigative tool, but it must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality, because a bank account is the instrument of a person's daily financial life and livelihood (para 6). The agency must have tangible material showing a prima facie connection between the account and the offence; conjecture or administrative convenience is not enough (para 7). Where the suspect amount is identifiable and can be segregated, there is ordinarily no justification for making the whole account inoperative (para 8). Proportionality requires the least restrictive measure (para 9). Indiscriminate freezing can disrupt business, statutory payments and contractual obligations and the livelihood of the account holder's dependants (para 10). The Court followed the coordinate bench in Shwetambari Vikram Bhatt, where only the disputed sum stayed frozen (para 11). Investigation cannot become punitive before guilt is adjudicated (para 12).