ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitionersare aggrieved by the unilateral action of freezing of bank accounts of the petitioners maintained with the respondents 7 and 8 banks without issuance of any notice and without following the due procedure of law. A direction to de-freeze the bank accounts is sought for in the writ petition. 2. Sri.O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners received notices under Section 179 BNSS and they attended the office of the 5 th respondent for enquiry and cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that on 03.03.2025, the 5 th respondent conducted a search on the residential premises of the petitioners under Section 185 of BNSS and seized various documents and also the GST returns filed by the petitioners. However, while the petitioners were cooperating for investigation their bank accounts were frozen on the instructions of the 5 th respondent. The brief facts of the case : 3. The 5 th respondent is a SIT constituted in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil). No.622 of 2024 and the 5 th respondent had issued proceedings in accordance with Section 106 of BNSS for freezing the bank accounts with respect to ongoing investigation in Crime No.470 of 2024. 4. The learned senior counsel submits that the order freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners has paralyzed the operations of the petitioners disrupting their day to day functioning and business activities. It is submitted that the very existence of the petitioners is under cloud on account of the instructions – cum – order passed by the 5 th respondent to the respondents 7 and 8. 5. It is submitted that Crime No.470 of 2024 was registered with Tirupati East Police Station for alleged offence under Section 274, 275, 316 (5), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 299, 336 (3), 340 (2) read with 49, 3(5) of BNS, Section 51 and 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. A complaint was lodged by the General Manager of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam alleging that adulterated and substandard Ghee was supplied by M/s.AR Dairy Food Private Limited in-connivance with the others. 6. After registration of the crime, the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team for the purpose of investigation of the crime registered. A complaint was lodged by the General Manager of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam alleging that adulterated and substandard Ghee was supplied by M/s.AR Dairy Food Private Limited in-connivance with the others. 6. After registration of the crime, the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team for the purpose of investigation of the crime registered. Thereafter, the Special Investigation Team constituted by the State was substituted and a New Special Investigation Team was constituted in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(Civil).No.622 of 2024. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners never supplied any adulterated or substandard Ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, as such, their bank account could not have been frozen. The learned senior counsel further submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have created fake invoices, fake E-way bills and other receipts to portray that there was a genuine supply of Ghee. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that the procedure as contemplated under Section 106 of BNSS was not followed by the 5 th respondent and no permission was sought from the jurisdictional Magistrate for freezing the account. The learned senior counsel places reliance on Headstar Global Pvt.Limited Vs. State of Kerala, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, CRL.MC.No.3740 of 2025, decided on 02.06.2025 the High Court of Kerala held that Section 106 of BNSS speaks a procedure and Section 107 of BNSS deals with attachment, forfeiture and restoration. Seizure under Section 106 BNSS can be carried out by police officer and next ex post facto report to be submitted to the Magistrate and that the purpose of seizure is to secure the evidence during an investigation, whereas, attachment is intended to secure the proceeds of crime by preventing its disposal. It is thus submitted that after completion of investigation continuation of freezing of bank accounts of the petitioners is disrupting the cash flow for the petitioners which is endangering their livelihood. 9. The learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent submits that the Ashish Agarwal in conspiracy with Accused Nos.3, 4, 12 and 14 created fake/supply record of Ghee by creating invoices, E-Way bills, Transport receipts, GST returns and received the amounts through the banks. 9. The learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent submits that the Ashish Agarwal in conspiracy with Accused Nos.3, 4, 12 and 14 created fake/supply record of Ghee by creating invoices, E-Way bills, Transport receipts, GST returns and received the amounts through the banks. The learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent during the course of arguments submits that the petitioners did not supply any Ghee, however, have created fake documents to portray that they have sold Ghee and have created other documents to substantiate the transportation of the Ghee products. 10. The learned standing counsel further submits that the procedure contemplated under Section 106 of BNSS has been scrupulously followed and that post freezing of the bank accounts the jurisdictional Magistrate was duly intimated. The 5 th respondent has addressed a Notice-Cum-Order dated 15.03.2025 under Section 106 of BNSS to respondent Nos.7 and 8 for freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners. It is submitted that a detailed counter is filed narrating the modus in commission of the alleged offences. 11. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5. Perused the material on record. 12. The short question for this Court to decide whether the freezing of bank accounts is required to be continued further or the accounts which were frozen in pursuance of Notice-Cum-Order dated 15.03.2025 deserves to be set aside. 13. The petitioner No.4 is arraigned as Accused No.15 in the crime and investigation is completed and also charge sheet is filed. The 5 th respondent had issued a Notice-Cum-Order to the respondents 7 and 8 for freezing bank accounts of the petitioners and such communication was addressed while the investigation was in progress. 14. There is force in the submission of the learned senior counsel that continuation of freeze on the bank accounts of the petitioners would only lead to financial distress and disruption in cash flow which would also render the petitioners and the business concerns run by the petitioners insolvent. The petitioners and the business concerns would have to clear the statutory dues and also pay taxes apart from maintaining their family. 15. The involvement of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences would have to be decided on merits when the matter is taken up for trial. The petitioners and the business concerns would have to clear the statutory dues and also pay taxes apart from maintaining their family. 15. The involvement of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences would have to be decided on merits when the matter is taken up for trial. Continuation of the freeze on the bank account of the petitioners would lead to other legal consequences for the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners cannot pay their statutory dues including the statutory taxes and shall also default in paying salaries of their staff. The same is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and their employees who are dependent on the petitioners. The livelihood of the employees and their dependents on the salary disbursed by the petitioners would also be impacted once the cash flow is disrupted. 16. It is evident that the petitioners have not supplied any Ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam nor have received any amounts from Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. As such, the bank accounts of the petitioners can be de-frozen subject to the petitioners furnishing the statement of income and expenditure and the details of transfers if any made pending trial on a monthly basis after the end of the each month. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.