The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday questioned the Chandigarh Police over its communications to banks seeking release of frozen accounts in the alleged multi-crore IDFC First Bank fraud case, even after the investigation had been transferred to the CBI.The Bench orally observed that once the probe stood transferred to the CBI on April 27, it was required to be explained under what authority the Chandigarh Police or the UT Administration continued issuing letters regarding the frozen accounts.The issue arose during the hearing of a petition in which senior advocate Randeep Rai argued that despite the transfer of FIRs to the CBI and registration of RCs by the Central agency, the Chandigarh Police was “overenthusiastically” writing to banks to release liens/freezes on accounts through which the allegedly siphoned money had travelled.Rai, along with counsel Rubina Virmani, told the Bench on the bank’s behalf that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already granted “no objection” for transferring the relevant FIRs registered by Chandigarh Police’s Economic Offences Wing to the CBI. He referred to an April 27 communication sent to the CBI Director for transfer of cases involving alleged financial fraud in accounts linked to IDFC First Bank’s Sector 32 branch.Referring to subsequent communications allegedly sent by the Chandigarh Police on May 2 and May 8, Rai contended that the local police had effectively ceased to have control over the investigation after the transfer to the CBI, yet was still pressing for release of frozen accounts.“They are ensuring that these liens fall in the cracks while transfer is happening,” Rai submitted, adding that around 50 to 70 accounts were involved. He claimed nearly Rs 700 crore of bank money was involved in the alleged fraud.The High Court repeatedly asked the UT Administration to explain the legal basis for the communications. “So, this investigation stands transferred to the CBI. So, the CBI is seized with the investigation,” the Bench observed orally during the hearing.Questioning the continuation of correspondence by the Chandigarh Police, the court further remarked orally: “What authority that the UT Administration had to issue this letter after the transfer?”The Bench directed the UT Administration’s counsel to seek instructions specifically on the May 2 and May 8 communications, particularly in the backdrop of the April 27 transfer order.During the hearing, Rai also relied upon recent Supreme Court directions issued in suo motu proceedings concerning cyber frauds and digital arrest scams. He referred to a December 2025 order of a three-judge Bench permitting freezing of amounts traceable to cybercrimes even without registration of FIRs. He also cited subsequent directions issued in February 2026 after approval of a nationwide SOP prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs for handling cyber fraud complaints, freezing suspicious transactions and restoring defrauded amounts.Reading from the Supreme Court directions, Rai submitted that “the CBI and the state authorities, with or without FIR, are at liberty to freeze such amounts” traceable to cybercrimes already reported to police agencies or the NCRP portal.He further referred to the Supreme Court’s direction requiring all authorities and High Courts to ensure compliance with the SOP meant to strengthen inter-agency coordination and timely restoration of defrauded funds.