3 min readLucknowJul 3, 2026 12:37 AM IST
First published on: Jul 2, 2026 at 07:49 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Police’s cyber cell for freezing the bank account of a lawyer on the ground that the fee paid to him by his client might be part of the amount the accused was charged with siphoning off, and directed the state government to file an affidavit so as not to interfere with the “dispensation of justice in courts”.
The division bench of Justices JJ Munir and Arun Kumar, in its order dated June 25, observed, “The petitioner is an Advocate. He can be paid his fee by the Government, by a respectable man or a man who is not so respectable. An Advocate could be defending an accused who is indeed involved in a big scam or fraud but when fee is remitted by such an accused to his learned Counsel in account the money cannot be said to be proceeds of crime.”
“It is the lawful remuneration of the learned counsel which would be duly earned after the engagement is discharged. If for the remittance of any sum of money, an Advocate’s account is frozen describing it as a cyber fraud or the money as proceeds of a cyber fraud or other crime it could become very difficult for Advocates to discharge their professional duties under the Advocates Act. The functioning of the Court itself would be embarrassed,” the bench further noted.
The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file an affidavit within two weeks, clarifying how seizure of an “advocate’s account, made by sundry officers of the police, is to be dealt with so as not to interfere with dispensation of justice itself in Courts”.
The bench stated, “It would be quite a different matter, if an advocate is himself involved in a criminal offence and has credits of money to his account that are proceeds of his own crime.”
The petitioner lawyer, Ayush Bajpai, who practiced in a Kanpur court, had approached the High Court against the State Bank of India’s Krishna Nagar (Kanpur) branch freezing his account on the cyber cell’s instructions citing alleged fraudulent transactions.
The petitioner’s counsel, Archit Mishra, told the Indian Express that Bajpai was representing an accused facing a case of alleged siphoning off money through cyber fraud. Bajpai was paid a fee by his client in his bank account, he added.
The court, after hearing the submissions by petitioner and the government counsel, said that “it is settled by two division bench decisions of this court that on account of a fraudulent transaction the Cyber Cell cannot freeze the entire bank account except that which is the proceeds of suspicious transaction or a crime”.
The bench added, “We record in this case that the account involved here has modest credits of sums of Rs 20,000 on March 18, Rs 3,700 on April 23 and two other credits of the same amount on the same day”.
Listing the hearing for July 17, the bench also directed the cyber cell and the SBI branch manager to file counter-affidavits within two weeks.
Listing the hearing for July 17, the bench also directed the cyber cell and the SBI branch manager to file counter-affidavits within two weeks. (File) 
Share
