Financial investigations now sit at core of criminal policing in India. Police follow money trails because digital banking leave strong evidence traces. This approach helps detect fraud, laundering, and organised financial misconduct. It also shift focus from physical seizure to data based seizure. Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 supports this shift. Courts treat bank account as “property” under Section 102 CrPC. Police therefore can freeze account when facts create suspicion of offence. Yet, police must follow safeguards, else freeze becomes unlawful. Section 102(3) demands reporting seizure to Magistrate forthwith. Courts call this requirement mandatory, not optional compliance. Supreme Court has said Section 102 needs cautious use, not routine use. Court also clarified no prior notice required before freezing. This legal position creates hard practical problem for account holder. Account holder discovers freeze later, so harm already happens. Defreezing then becomes urgent remedy for business and livelihood. Magistrate can grant relief under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. High Courts may also intervene under Article 226 or Section 482. Courts weigh nexus with offence, proportionality, and procedural legality. This paper studies standards governing freezing and defreezing in Indian criminal jurisprudence. It also maps tensions between investigative effectiveness and property rights. It further evaluates judicial tools that prevent arbitrariness and misuse.