Representation on Behalf of Accused: Vishal Kumar Singh
May it please this Hon’ble Court, the present representation is filed on behalf of the accused,
Mr Vishal Kumar Singh, whose bank account has been subjected to a debit freeze on the
instructions of the Cyber Police Co-ordination Cell. The accused most respectfully submits
the following points in support of his plea for unfreezing the account, as the action of
freezing the entire account is illegal, disproportionate, and violative of his fundamental rights.
Foreign Inward Remittance as a Genuine Source
The bank statements clearly reflect credits described as 'FOREIGN INWARD REM',
including deposits of ₹20,000 on 22.03.2024 and ₹1,166 on 17.05.2024. This substantiates
the defence that the accused routinely receives legitimate foreign remittances from a family
member working in Dubai. The disputed transaction ought to be seen in this context and not
in isolation.
No Nexus Between Disputed Amount and Fraudulent Activity
The disputed UPI credit of ₹5,713 on 29.03.2024, flagged in the complaint, is a solitary
transaction. The account balance before and after shows no direct outflow of the disputed
sum to third parties. The absence of any layering or suspicious withdrawals demonstrates that
the accused is not part of any fraud chain.
Disproportionate Freezing of Entire Account
The debit freeze imposed on the entire account balance is excessive. Courts have repeatedly
held that freezing beyond the disputed sum amounts to a violation of the right to livelihood
under Article 21 of the Constitution. The hold of ₹5,710 is sufficient to protect the
complainant’s claim, and no justification exists for freezing the whole account.
Absence of Mens Rea
The essential element of criminal intent is absent. The accused had no knowledge of the
alleged fraudulent origin of the disputed sum. He genuinely believed that the amount was part
of the regular remittances he receives. There is no evidence to show that he acted with
dishonest intent.
Procedural Lapses under Cr.P.C.
As per Section 102 Cr.P.C., the police are bound to forthwith report the seizure to the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Failure to comply renders the freezing illegal. It is pertinent to note
that there is no indication in the record that such mandatory reporting has been complied
with.
Alternative Measures Available
Even assuming arguendo that suspicion persists, courts have suggested alternative measures
such as keeping the disputed amount in a fixed deposit or directing the accused to furnish a
bank guarantee. Freezing of the entire account balance is not the least restrictive option and
therefore violates proportionality principles.
Key Judicial Precedents
1. Mohammed Saifullah vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (WP.25631 /2024)
The Madras HC held that an order freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount
involved or specifying the period is not permissible.
In that case, the amount suspected of fraud was ₹2,48,835, while the full account balance was
₹9,69,580. The court directed that only the disputed amount be kept under lien and permitted
the petitioner to operate the rest of the account.
[Link]
2. Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore vs State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JD:26095]
The Rajasthan HC held that unwarranted freezing of bank accounts by investigating
authorities in a mechanical manner (i.e. without individualised justification) is a serious
concern because it causes severe financial hardship to innocent persons or business entities.
The court emphasised compliance with Section 102 (3) CrPC (or equivalent under BNSS),
which requires proper procedure.
[Link]
In light of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to direct the authorities to unfreeze the account of the accused, save and except for the
disputed sum of ₹5,710, or in the alternative, permit the accused to operate the account
subject to maintaining the disputed sum as balance. Such relief would balance the interests of
investigation and the accused’s fundamental right to livelihood.
