Undermines His Right To Livelihood: Delhi HC Orders De-Freezing Of Chhole-Bhature Vendor's Bank Account In Alleged Cyber Fraud Of ₹105

“Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is 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 in Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He maintained a savings bank account with the Union Bank of India. When he could not withdraw money from his account, he rushed to the bank.

At the bank, the vendor was told that an unknown person had credited a sum of Rs. 105 in his bank account and that this amount was connected to a cyber fraud. The bank said that his bank account was frozen due to intimation received from the concerned Investigating Agency.

The vendor had around Rs. 1.2 lakh in his account at the time of freezing. According to the petitioner, he has neither any knowledge nor has any complicity with commission of any cyber-fraud. He also states that without giving any prior notice to him, his bank account could not have been attached. Petitioner contended that he had no reason to take the aforesaid credit suspiciously as he rather apprehended that some customer might have purchased chhole-bhature from him which he sells @ Rs. 35/- per plate and towards the sale consideration of three plates, there might have been a deposit of Rs. 105/- in his bank account, by electronic mode.

The court questioned how the entire bank account of the petitioner-vendor was frozen. The Court said, “Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed.”

It said that as of now there was nothing to indicate or to suggest that the petitioner is part of any conspiracy or is himself a cyber criminal, and he possibly, may not even be connected with the offence at all and might be innocent and unintended beneficiary only.

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

“Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable, at the moment.”

In view of the circumstances, the Court directed the respondent-bank to de-freeze the petitioner's account by marking a lien on the disputed credited amount of Rs. 105.

Case title: Pawan Kumar Rai vs.Union Of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 15066/2024 &CM APPL. 63159/2024)

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Anil Goel and Mr. Aditya Goel

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, G.P. for R-1 and Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn for R-2