$~58

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 19137/2025&CM APPL. 79604/2025

YADHUVIR SINGH MANHAS

.....Petitioner

Through: Adv. Rohan Tewari; Adv. Kailash

Ram

versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK AND ORS

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Adv for R1

Mr. Abhishek Saket (SPCG), Mr. Manish

Madhukar, Mr. Abhigyan, Ms. Reya Paul, Advs.

for R2-3

Mr.Abhinav Bajaj AAG with Mr.Saksham Ojha

Ms.GeetashiChandnaMs.PriyaFandon,Advocates

for R5

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

1. This is writ a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following prayers:-

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and quashing the freezeinstructions/liensissuedbyRespondentNos.4to6and executed by Respondent No. 1 in respect of the Petitioner’s

Savings Account No. 7345482270;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing Respondent No. 1

(Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd) to forthwith defreeze the Petitioner’s aforesaid bank account and restore full operational access thereto.;

c)Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashingandsettingaside thelienof Rs.49,999/-imposedin July 2024 and the five miscellaneous liens aggregating to Rs. 8,209/-, in the absence of any information being provided to the Petitioner regarding the same;…”

2. The petitioner is challenging the disproportionate freezing of his Saving Account No. 7345482270 maintained with the respondent No.1 bank i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vasant Kunj-II Branch, New Delhi (IFSC: KKBK0004597).

3. The petitioner’s entire balance of Rs. 6,09,755.13/- as on 30.11.2025 stands completely frozen pursuant to the lien notices aggregating to Rs.1,63,185.82 (or Rs. 1,71,395.63 which includes unexplained liens)

issued by Cyber Crime Authority in 4 different States.

4. It is stated by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no objection if the amount of Rs. 1,63,185.82 is put on hold and the petitioner is permitted to operate the balance amount.

5. Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states on instructions that there are some entries from Dubai which mismatch in thepetitioner’s account (i.e.thepetitioneris a resident ofJalandhar and the entries are fromDubai) on the basis of which, the respondent No. 1 has put debit freeze.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India &

Ors. (2024) SCC OnLine Del 8936 and more particularly on paragraphs 24 to 27 which read as under:-

“24. The petitioner is a small-scale vendor, engaged in sale of food items and dependent on his daily earnings to sustain his family.

25. Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

26. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed.

27. Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable, at the moment.”

7. TheaboveobservationsoftheCoordinateBench,tomymind,correctly capture the legal position governing the rights of the petitioner.

8. The power to freeze a bank account, though undoubtedlyavailable, is a drastic one and must, therefore, be exercised with due application of mind and