“There is no doubt that the passing of an order freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has serious and adverse consequences and infringes on his inestimable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action constitutes in substance a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly infringes upon his right to livelihood, which is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Manoj Jain said.

The petitioner-vendor earned his livelihood by selling chhole-bhature at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He held a savings bank account with the Union Bank of India. Unable to withdraw money from his account, he rushed to the bank.

At the bank, the seller was informed that an unknown person had credited a sum of Rs. 105 to his bank account and that this amount was linked to cyber fraud. The bank said its bank account was frozen due to information received from the investigating agency concerned.

The seller had around Rs. 1.2 lakh in his account at the time of the freeze. According to the petitioner, he has no knowledge of nor is he complicit in any cyber fraud. He also specifies that without notice, his bank account could not have been seized. The petitioner contended that he had no reason to take the aforesaid credit suspiciously as rather he was apprehensive that a customer had purchased chhole-bhature from him which he is selling at Rs. 4,999. 35/- per plate and for the consideration for the sale of three plates, there could have been a deposit of Rs. 35/- per plate and for the consideration for the sale of three plates, there could have been a deposit of Rs. 105/- in his bank account, through electronic mode.

The court wondered how the entire bank account of the petitioner-vendor was frozen. The Court stated: “Furthermore, when the investigating agency identified a specific sum credited to the petitioner’s bank account, it is difficult to understand why the entire bank account of the petitioner was frozen.”

He said that at present there was no indication or suggestion that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy or that he himself was a cybercriminal, and that he might not even be connected at all to the offense and could be an innocent and unwitting beneficiary. only.

The Court emphasized that freezing the entire bank account when the seller was not even suspected of being involved in cybercrime was unjustified.

“Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even suggesting that the petitioner was either the mastermind or the accomplice of the cybercrime, or that he knowingly received funds in the course of an activity illegal, will be neither justifiable nor sustainable for the moment. .”

Given the circumstances, the Court directed the respondent bank to unfreeze the account of the petitioner by marking a lien on the disputed credited amount of Rs. 105.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union Of India & Anr. (WP(C) 15066/2024 and CM APPL. 63159/2024)

Petitioner’s advice: Mr. Anil Goel and Mr. Aditya Goel

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, Senior Advocate of the Committee with Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, General Practitioner for R-1 and Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn for R-2