# Poem Jaiswar v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1041
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 9771 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/poem-jaiswar-v-u-o-i-anr-53813
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1 All. Poem Jaiswar Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1041

16- We are also in agreement with the arguments raised by learned Standing counsel that the
issue pertaining to allotment of patta sites is a beneficial piece of legislation and should be
interpreted in a liberal manner so as to fulfill the objects sought to be achieved rather than to curtail
rights of the person for whom the allotment has been made.

17- Withe regard to the persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes the period
of limitation has been done away with which fact also goes to show that the time period for
constructing a house on patta sites is not mandatory condition. This Court is also of the considered
view that merely because a person has not raised construction within three years can automatically
lead to cancellation of his allotment.

18- To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure its
compliance it is undoubtedly necessary that the land should be used for the purpose of construction
of a house within a reasonable time. In case, for any reason, the allottee has not been able to
construct house, notice should certainly be given to him requiring him to construct his house within
the time prescribed and even if within the time prescribed he or she does not construct house it
would certainly be open for the Collector to invoke the powers under Sub clause 2 (b) of Rule 64
and cancel the allotment.

19- Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the challenge made to
the impugned orders rejecting his claim for cancellation for allotment after a period of three years
which was highly belated and the application was rightly rejected by both the authorities below. In
view of the above, no infirmity in the impugned orders can be found to interfere in the said matter.
The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1041
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ C No. 9771 of 2025

Poem Jaiswar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians or
absence of consent from one parent can constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to process and issue
the passport?

Headnotes
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Fundamental Rights and Personal Liberty - Passport Act, 1967: Section 6; Passport Manual,
2020: Chapter 4 - Right to obtain a passport and travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right
to personal liberty u/Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be arbitrarily denied on account of
parental disagreements. (Para 12)

It is well-settled that the expression "person liberty" in Article 21 of the Constitution includes right to travel
abroad and no person can be deprived of that right except according to the procedure established in law and
also the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.
(Para 13)

The mere issuance of a passport does not itself confer a right to travel abroad in violation of any
law, but it is a prerequisite for exercising the right to freedom of movement internationally. A
passport is a document issued to a citizen by the State, which enables its holder to apply for a visa and,
subject to compliance with applicable laws and governmental orders, to cross international borders.

B. In the context of minors, while administrative authorities are required to verify the consent of
natural guardians, such verification cannot be used as a tool to indefinitely frustrate the exercise
of rights, and procedural compliance should be ensured without unnecessary delay. (Para 15)

C. A passport application can be refused only on the specific grounds enumerated in Section 6 of
the Act, which include national security concerns, ongoing criminal proceedings, or restrictions
imposed by a competent court. The authorities do not have a general or discretionary power to deny a
passport on other extraneous or administrative grounds.

In the present case of a minor, no such conditions exist that would justify rejection of the application.
Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians
cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal. Therefore, the passport authorities are dutybound to process and issue the passport once the prescribed formalities are completed and there is no
prohibitory order. (Para 17)

D. The Passport Rules, 1980, and the Passport Manual reinforces this approach by providing
mechanisms for issuing passport to minors even in cases of parental discord, ensuring that the
minor's rights are not subordinated to disagreements between guardians. As per provisions
provided for the minor in the passport rules, in case one of the parents of the minor child has not given
consent for issuance of passport, the parent who has applied for passport is required to submit declaration in
the form of Annexure (C). (Para 18)

The statutory declarations u/Annexure-C is specifically provides to address the situation where one parent is
unavailable or refuses consent without lawful justification and therefore the passport authority cannot sit over
an application indefinitely on the basis of unsubstantiated objections or delay formal decision making beyond
reasonable bounds, particularly when all required documents and declarations are in place and there is no
court order restraining the issuance of the passport. (Para 19, 25)

E. The Manual's requirements are not rigid obstacles but must be construed flexibly to ensure
that a minor's welfare is not held hostage to the mutual acrimony of parents. (Para 20)

The absence of consent from one parent ...cannot nullify the constitutional rights of a minor, and a
mechanical refusal to process the application cannot be countenanced. (Para 22)

While doing statutory formalities, authorities must not create undue barriers that frustrate the
minor's fundamental rights. (Para 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
1 All. Poem Jaiswar Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1043
Case Law Cited:
1. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (Para 13)
2. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887 (Para 14)
3. Smita Maan Vs. Regional Passport Officer 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2323 (Para 20)
4. Yushika Vivek Gedam Vs. Union of India & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 46 (Para 23)
5. Devyani Nitish Bharadwaj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 154 (Para 24)

List of Acts
Passport Manual, 2020; Passport Act, 1967.

List of Keywords
parental disputes, personal, liberty, constitution, fundamental, passport, rights, minor.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner(s): Chandra Mohan Singh, Rajesh Kumar
For Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., Sanjay Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Charurvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner, a minor girl of two years, represented by her mother, seeks issuance of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to issue a passport in her favour.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a minor, she applied
for issuance of a passport through her mother on 17.01.2025, which was registered on 27.01.2025
and allotted Passport Application No. LK3060650744225. He further submits that the application
was filed before the Office of the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow after completion of all
formalities required under the Passport Act, 1967 and the rules framed thereunder and yet no
decision is passed on her application.

4. Learned counsel further submits that matrimonial disputes have arisen between the parents
of the petitioner leading to the FIR being lodged by the mother against father of the petitioner and
his family members, being Case Crime No. 0042 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
406 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Jaunpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that solely due to the pendency of the
aforesaid criminal case between her parents, the concerned passport authority has orally declined to
proceed with issuance of the passport.

5. Learned counsel representing petitioner further contends that due to the ongoing
matrimonial dispute, the father of the petitioner is not cooperating and is unwilling to grant consent
for issuance of the passport. The petitioner asserts that such non-cooperation on the part of the
father cannot be acceptable reason to violate the rights of a minor child, which is guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned counsel further submits that the right to obtain a passport is an integral part of the
right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same
cannot be curtailed for the minor due to dispute in between parents. He further submits that despite
repeated follow up with the office of respondent no.2, no decision has been taken on the passport
application, and such continued pendency of the application is in violation of the provisions of the
Passport Act, 1967 and against the settled principles of administrative law.

7. Having considered the pleadings on record and the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the principal issue which arises for consideration by this Court is whether
the passport application of a minor child can be kept pending merely on account of matrimonial or
criminal disputes between her parents.

8. During the pendency of the present petition, this court, by order dated 10.04.2025, after
hearing the parties, directed the learned counsel representing respondents to obtain written
instructions explaining the reasons for non-issuance of the passport, or otherwise to place
instructions regarding issuance of the passport in favour of the petitioner.

9. Pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2025, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
authorities, on the basis of written instructions, submits that a letter was sent to the petitioner by the
Assistant Passport Officer/Senior Superintendent on 22.04.2025. A copy of the letter has been
placed on record, which states that, for processing the passport application of the petitioner in
accordance with law and for completion of the required formalities relating to issuance of the
passport, the petitioner is required to appear before the concerned office on working days, between
10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., along with the documents specified in the letter.

10. It is evident from the submissions and the letter placed on record by the counsel
representing respondent that the passport authorities have not refused the application outright but
have sought certain documents to comply with legal requirements. Learned counsel submits that
upon compliance with these requirements, the passport application shall be processed in accordance
with law.

11. After considering the submissions made by counsels representing parties and the material
on record, we find it appropriate to examine the legal position regarding the issuance of a passport
to a minor child where one parent is not cooperating due to matrimonial disputes.

12. Right to obtain a passport and travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right to personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be arbitrarily denied on account of parental
disagreements. At this stage, we consider it appropriate to peruse relevant statutory provisions and
judgements of other Courts on the issue of minor's right in similar facts and circumstances.

13. It is well-settled that the expression "person liberty" in Article 21 of the Constitution
includes right to travel abroad and no person can be deprived of that right except according to the
procedure established in law and also the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and
reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. Apex Court has held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, that the right to travel is encompassed within the ambit of the right to
1 All. Poem Jaiswar Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1045
life and personal liberty, and that any administrative action impinging upon such right must satisfy
the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. In Maneka Gandhi (supra) it was
observed by Justice M.H. Beg that:

"193. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that the right to travel and to go outside
the country, which orders regulating issue, suspension or impounding, and cancellation of
passports directly affect, must be included in rights to "personal liberty" on the strength of
decisions of this Court giving a very wide ambit to the right to personal liberty."

14. The legal principle discussed above has been consistently followed, and recently, in
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, the
Supreme Court observed that:

"2. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation.
The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is
an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may,
where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or
public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to
the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are
converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite
exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is
disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk.

15. It is a common assumption that the document enabling a citizen to apply for permission to
cross border with the permission to leave the country to go to a particular country. It is important to
distinguish between the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport
is a document issued to a citizen by the State, which enables its holder to apply for a visa and,
subject to compliance with applicable laws and governmental orders, to cross international borders.
The mere issuance of a passport does not itself confer a right to travel abroad in violation of any
law, but it is a prerequisite for exercising the right to freedom of movement internationally. In the
context of minors, while administrative authorities are required to verify the consent of natural
guardians, such verification cannot be used as a tool to indefinitely frustrate the exercise of rights,
and procedural compliance should be ensured without unnecessary delay. In Mahesh Kumar
Agarwal (supra) the Supreme Court observed that:

"22. It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of
travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject
to other laws and orders, to cross international borders?"

16. Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 relates to provisions for specific refusal of Passport,
travel documents etc., enumerating various conditions for refusal of passport, which are reproduced
below:

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.?(1) Subject to the other provisions of this
Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following
grounds, and no other ground, namely:?

(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial
to the sovereignty and integrity of India:

(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental
to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the
friendly relations of India with that or any other country,

(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such
country is not in the public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue
a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:?

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to
the sovereignty and integrity of India.,

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to
the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the
friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately
preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving
moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the
applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the
applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order
prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure
incurred in connection with such repatriation;
1 All. Poem Jaiswar Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1047

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel
document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.

(Emphasis added)"

17. Having regard to the above statutory provisions, it is evident that a passport application
can be refused only on the specific grounds enumerated in Section 6 of the Act, which include
national security concerns, ongoing criminal proceedings, or restrictions imposed by a competent
court. The authorities do not have a general or discretionary power to deny a passport on other
extraneous or administrative grounds. In the present case of a minor, no such conditions exist that
would justify rejection of the application. Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal
matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal.
Therefore, the passport authorities are duty-bound to process and issue the passport once the
prescribed formalities are completed and there is no prohibitory order.

18. The Passport Rules, 1980, and the Passport Manual reinforces this approach by providing
mechanisms for issuing passport to minors even in cases of parental discord, ensuring that the
minor's rights are not subordinated to disagreements between guardians. As per provisions
provided for the minor in the passport rules, in case one of the parents of the minor child has not
given consent for issuance of passport, the parent who has applied for passport is required to submit
declaration in the form of Annexure (C). Declarant is required to declare that there is an ongoing
case between the parents for divorce and custody of minor child is also pending but the competent
Court has not issued any prohibitory order for issuance of passport without consent of other parent
and also that the child is being exclusively in the physical custody of that parent. There is no
prohibition in the Passport Rules that without any consent of the father, passport cannot be issued
to minor child. Even there is no provision that in the absence of any prohibitory order, the
permission from the Court is required.

19. The statutory declarations under Annexure-C is specifically provides to address the
situation where one parent is unavailable or refuses consent without lawful justification and
therefore the passport authority cannot sit over an application indefinitely on the basis of
unsubstantiated objections or delay formal decision making beyond reasonable bounds, particularly
when all required documents and declarations are in place and there is no court order restraining
the issuance of the passport.

20. Chapter 4 of the Passport Manual, 2020, lays down the provisions governing the issuance
of passports to minors. Clause 4 of the said Chapter specifically addresses special categories of
minor applicants and comprehensively provides the procedure to be followed in all such specific
cases, including circumstances where matrimonial disputes or divorce proceedings between the
parents are pending, as well as cases involving single or separated parents seeking issuance of a
passport for the minor child. Delhi High Court in Smita Maan Vs Regional Passport Officer
2023 SCC OnLine Del 2323 has observed that the Manual's requirements are not rigid obstacles
but must be construed flexibly to ensure that a minor's welfare is not held hostage to the mutual
acrimony of parents.
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Delhi High Court in Smita Maan (supra) has made following observations after dealing
with office memorandum, Passport Manual 2020 and relevant statutory provisions:

"23. In all the three decisions quoted above, the biological father had in effect disowned
the child and had severed all ties with the child. Irrespective of the fact that the applicable clauses
in the Manual may be different, the spirit behind the said decisions is clear, i.e., that under certain
circumstances the name of the biological father can be deleted and the surname can also be
changed. Both the Passport Manual and the OM relied upon by the Respondents recognise that
passports can be issued under varying circumstances without the name of the father. Such a relief
ought to be considered, depending upon the factual position emerging in each case. No hard and
fast rule can be applied. There are myriad situations in the case of matrimonial discord between
parents, where the child's passport application may have to be considered by the authorities. Such
situations include ?

- divorce with sole custody and mere visitation;

- divorce with joint custody and visitation;

- divorce with sole custody and no visitation;

- divorce with complete disowning of the child;

- divorce with some rights being given to the child;

- divorce between the couple but rights vesting in either side's grandparents;

- Separation with divorce pending and visitation issues pending in Court;

- Desertion by either parent;

- Divorce or Separation with conditions relating to subsequent marriages which may alter the
relationship with the child;

- Legal disowning of the child by either parent;

- Situations where the couple are in different countries and an attempt is made to remove the
child from a jurisdiction;

24. The situations set out above are not exhaustive but are illustrative to show how the
passport applications of minors may have to be considered and examined under varying
circumstances. The Manual merely contemplates some of the situations and provides for certain
mechanisms. However, the need for flexibility exists depending upon the fact situation. A thorough
examination and understanding of court orders may also be required."
1 All. Poem Jaiswar Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1049

22. On the issue of passport issuance to the minor where parents had dispute, Bombay High
Court observed that a minor's right to travel abroad cannot be prejudiced merely because the father,
involved in ongoing matrimonial proceedings, refuses to give his consent or no objection
certificate. The absence of consent from one parent in such circumstances cannot nullify the
constitutional rights of a minor, and a mechanical refusal to process the application cannot be
countenanced.

23. Relevant paragraph in the judgement of Bombay High Court in Yushika Vivek Gedam
vs. Union of India & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 46, reads as under :

"23. We may also observe that in the contemporary times traveling abroad cannot be
considered to be a fanciful affair but has became an essential requirement of modern life. Such
need to travel which may be the requirement of a child, a student or an employee, professional or a
person from any other strata of the society, has undergone a monumental change. Thus, the right to
travel is required to be not only recognized but made more meaningful. This can be achieved and
supported by the authorities implementing the provisions of the Passport Act by effectively
recognizing such contemporary needs in dealing with passport applications. The present case is an
example of a student being given an opportunity to undertake a study tour by visiting a foreign
country. Any action of the Passport Authority in denying the passport would have severe
consequence not only adversely affecting the applicant in a given situation, but it may cause
irreparable harm to the prospects of the applicant, for any venture she or he intended to undertake.
Thus, a mechanical approach in this regard by the Passport Authority cannot be countenanced.

24. We thus find that such valuable constitutional right of the petitioner cannot be
prejudiced much less be taken away, and merely on the ground as contained in the impugned
communication dated 18 November, 2024 issued by respondent no. 2. Further Section 6 of the
Passport Act, 1967 provides for Refusal of passports, travel documents etc. The ground on which
the application of the petitioner is not being processed is in no manner whatsoever recognized by
Section 6 of the Passport Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no warrant in
law for respondent no. 2 to deny the re-issuance of passport to the petitioner when the declaration
in Annexure-C was submitted by the petitioner's mother."

24. Madhya Pradesh High Court has also taken the similar view in Devyani Nitish
Bharadwaj and Others Vs Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 154, and granted
relief to petitioners, minor daughters, who had applied for renewal of their passports at the
Regional Passport Office, Bhopal, Ministry of External Affairs, through their mother. These
judgements highlights the importance of statutory compliance but it also demonstrates that while
doing statutory formalities, authorities must not create undue barriers that frustrate the minor's
fundamental rights.

25. It appears that the Passport Rules, 1980, have specifically foreseen the situation where the
consent of one parent of a minor may not be obtainable due to unavoidable circumstances. In such
cases, the Rule provide a complete procedural mechanism to ensure that the minor's right to a
passport is not defeated. The prescribed Annexure C is required to be submitted along with the
passport application by the applying parent. This annexure is a recognized declaration that takes
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
care of necessary procedural requirements, enabling the passport authorities to process and issue
the passport, even in the absence of consent from one parent. Accordingly, where the minor's
application is otherwise in order and all formalities under the Rules are complied with, there exists
no lawful reason to deny the passport.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the respondent authorities are directed to process and
issue the passport of the petitioner forthwith, subject to the completion of routine verification
formalities, as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, and the Passport Rules, 1980 and
applicable government notifications. The passport authorities shall ensure that the passport is issued
within a period of four weeks from the date petitioner complies with the procedural requirements
through her mother, which is already communicated by the authorities if there is no legal
impediment. 27. The writ petition is therefore allowed in terms of the above directions. There shall
be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1050
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 12211 of 2025

Khalsa Medical Store ...Petitioner
Versus
R.B.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the notice under Sections 94/106 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking "DEBIT FREEZE" of the account of
the petitioner, without any seizure order, without any indication as to the amount that is required to be put in
lien, without furnishing copy of the F.I.R. and without providing information with regard to the Court wherein
the particular case is pending, can be sustained; and whether the mechanism adopted by the Investigating
Officer, wherein the entire account of the petitioner has been frozen, is justified in law.

HEADNOTE
Freezing of bank account - Notice under Sections 94/106, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section
106 of BNSS should not be interpreted to empower police officers to intervene in money disputes by seizing
property especially based on mere suspicion but it must be bolstered by reasonable belief - Investigating
Officer is required to issue notice containing the amount for which lien is sought - Blanket notice without
indicating the amount on which lien is being sought held illegal and arbitrary - Freezing of entire bank
account without seizure order, without copy of F.I.R. and without indicating the Court wherein the case is
pending held unjustified and illegal - Impugned notice quashed - Direction to immediately de-freeze the
account and allow normal banking activities.
HELD:
Petitioner's bank account was subjected to debit freeze in connection with a cyber crime investigation
pursuant to a notice issued by the Investigating Officer under Sections 94/106 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.