No interim defreezes of TMC bank accounts, HC questions police for ‘hot haste’ in filing FIR

Case Details

Bench: Single Bench Justice Saugata Bhattacharya

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Kishore Dutta and Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Sanghvi

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Facts

An FIR was launched on June 18 by the Cyber Crime Unit of Bidhannagar based on the allegations that the three-party accounts linked to the TMC containing Rs 440 Crore were involved in a serious dispute, and the source of funds was from a probe source. Then, an investigation was launched into this matter.

Further, the bank accounts linked to TMC were debit-frozen by the HDFC Bank where the account was open. Then, Mamta Banerjee’s faction had moved this matter to the High Court seeking interim relief for the freezing of TMC’S three accounts by the Police.

Petitioner’s Arguments

During the hearing by the Hon’ble High Court, led by the single-bench Judge Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, where the matter was presented. The Counsel for Mamta Banerjee, Advocate Kishore Dutta, argued that they have already frozen three-party bank accounts, and now two more have been frozen, and all the transactions have been stopped based on a complaint made on suspicion. Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) empowers the police only for seizure and not for issuing prohibiting orders for freezing bank accounts. Also, the Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Sanghvi argued on behalf of the petitioner, further stating that the Losing party cannot be paralysed by using arbitrary power by the state by freezing the bank accounts is a straight-away violation of Article 19 and claims that the complaint is vague and is not a factual presentation that can lead to an action by the police.

Respondent’s Arguments

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kaul, representing the rebel TMC leaders, argued that if the TMC party is using the accounts to source funds for illegal purposes, then the investigation agency has to look into the matter. They further stated that the petitioner has no right to claim access to the bank account as a new national committee of the party has been appointed. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the State Police, stated that the investigation was extensive and had collected materials where it indicated that the funds were drawn from unknown source and asked the Court to defer the time for interim relief and the investigation reports will be presented before the court regarding the source of funds and till then requests the Court to let them keep the account frozen till then so that the investigation is not hampered.

Court’s Observation

The Calcutta High Court observed that the allegations in the complaint cannot be verified at such an early stage, and it would be better to take an in-depth examination of criminal allegations before considering the relief. It was also observed that not freezing bank accounts that were involved in an criminal complaint would not help the investigation agency to proceed and uncover the allegation’s genuineness. Further proposed the possibility of permitting limited operation of account under supervision of Court appointed Special officers which would consist of retired High Court Judges allowing only day t day expenditures and not major financial transactions until the dispute is solved.

Order

The Honourable Court, after hearing both sides, declined the grant of interim relief at this stage of the case or the de-freezing of the accounts and directed the concerned bank to disclose the corpus held in those accounts and file an affidavit in this regard. Also asked the Police to place the complaint on record and produce the materials collected during the investigation before the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing is on July 8, 2026

OLQ LAW FIRM

Call/WhatsApp: 8981949111