Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Thursday, October 8, 2026 Jaipur Edition
Rajasthan High Court
Criminal Law

Police-Directed Freezing of Entire Bank Accounts Beyond the Disputed Sum Is Disproportionate: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court held that freezing a bank account during an investigation is an extraordinary measure, to be used sparingly and only on recorded reasons showing a "live, proximate and direct nexus" between the account and the alleged crime (paras 5.1-5.2). As the FIR put the disputed sum at about ₹30 crores, freezing the petitioners' entire accounts was disproportionate (paras 5-6). The Court kept ₹30 crores frozen and allowed the accounts to operate for all other lawful transactions (para 9).

Police-Directed Freezing of Entire Bank Accounts Beyond the Disputed Sum Is Disproportionate: Rajasthan High Court
Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed
Shwetambari Vikram Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2026:RJ-JD:13929
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1081/2026 with No. 1082/2026
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
19 March 2026
Bench
Justice Farjand Ali
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Articles 19(1)(g), 21, 226
Final Outcome

Petitions disposed of. The disputed ₹30 crores identified by the investigating agency stays frozen, with only debits to that extent barred; the four listed accounts are de-frozen for all other lawful transactions, and the SHO must communicate the order to the banks forthwith (paras 9-12).

Key holdings

  1. Freezing a bank account during investigation is an extraordinary power, to be used sparingly and not mechanically (para 5.1).
  2. Recorded reasons must show a live, proximate and direct nexus between the account and the alleged crime (para 5.2).
  3. A freeze should be confined to the disputed amount; freezing entire accounts beyond the alleged tainted sum is disproportionate (paras 5-6).
  4. An indefinite freeze without telling the account holder its reasons, extent and duration offends natural justice (para 5.1).
  5. An unjustified freeze of a whole account infringes Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution (para 5.2).

Brief Facts

The petitioners, described in the order as film professionals, entered into an arrangement with the complainant to produce several films through an LLP (para 2). The complainant alleged that the accused siphoned off about ₹30 crores of the film funds through inflated and fake vendor bills, and FIR No. 213/2025 was registered at P.S. Bhupalpura, Udaipur, for cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy; the petitioners were arrested (paras 2, 4). On the Investigating Officer's communication, HDFC Bank and IDFC First Bank froze and then blocked their savings accounts, including accounts not directly connected with the alleged transactions (paras 1-2). The petitioners said the amounts received were legitimate, accounted professional fees (para 2.1).

Court's Findings

The Court accepted that the statutory framework lets an investigating agency ask a bank to freeze an account during investigation and intimate the jurisdictional Court forthwith, but held that the power is not unfettered: it is an extraordinary measure to be invoked sparingly, with due circumspection, and never mechanically (para 5.1). A freeze cannot continue indefinitely without telling the account holder the reasons, the allegations, its extent and its duration; otherwise it offends natural justice and is manifestly arbitrary (para 5.1). Freezing without cogent reasons or even a prima facie nexus with a cognizable offence intrudes on Article 21, which includes livelihood, dignity and economic freedom, and on Article 19(1)(g); relying on Maneka Gandhi, the Court required recorded reasons showing a direct nexus (para 5.2). Here only a quantified amount was under investigation, yet a blanket direction froze the accounts in their entirety (paras 5-6). The petitioners could not meet household expenses, pay salaries or service loans (para 6). A bank account, the Court said, is "the very bloodstream" of a person's economic existence (para 7), and a balanced, proportionate approach was needed (para 8).

Legal Principle

The investigating agency's power to have a bank account frozen is an extraordinary one. It must rest on recorded reasons showing a live, proximate and direct nexus between the account and the alleged offence, and should be confined to the disputed amount; freezing an entire account beyond the alleged tainted sum without justification is disproportionate and arbitrary (paras 5, 6).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5

    Any procedure which deprives a person of life or liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: March 19, 2026 Justice Farjand Ali
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt