SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20132

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R JYOTHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 4264/2026



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17409 WP No. 4264 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 4264 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

R JYOTHI W/O R LOKANANDHA NAIDU

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS,

MAIN ROAD, JAYANTHI NAGAR, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU EAST,

KARNATAKA-560 043.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREE HARI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY

Digitally THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, signed by BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.

CHAITHRA A Location: 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

HIGH NORTH REGION CYBER POLICE STATION, COURT OF REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA

INVESTIGATING OFFICER/ INSPECTOR, 5VX6+WJH, KAANDIVALI,

SHIV SAGAR, KANDIVALI EAST, MUMBAI-400 101.

3. AXIS BANK REPRESENTED BY,

THE BRANCH MANAGER, KALKERE BRANCH,

NO. 9, UPPER FLOOR,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17409 WP No. 4264 of 2026

HC-KAR

RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, RICHES GARDEN MAIN ROAD,

KALKERE, BENGALURU 560 016 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO DEFREEZE THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO USE AND OPERATE HAVING THE BANK SAVINGS NO.923010054563776 A/C IFSCCODE UTIB0004822,

MAINTAINED IN AXIS BANK AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking direction

against respondent No.3/Bank to defreeze the account of petitioner and permit petitioner to operate the bank account bearing A/c No.923010054563776, maintained

with respondent No.3/Bank.

2. The petitioner asserts that she is engaged in a

lawful and legitimate financial transactions involving purchase and sale of cryptocurrency (USDT) through a

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17409 WP No. 4264 of 2026

HC-KAR

recognized digital trading platform, namely Binance, strictly in accordance with applicable platform norms and regulations. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from a communication issued by respondent No.2— Investigating Officer, directing respondent No.3/Bank to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. It is contended that acting solely on the basis of such communication, the Bank has proceeded to freeze the entire account of the petitioner, thereby bringing her business operations to a

standstill.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties. Perused the material on record with care and

circumspection.

4. A perusal of the records would indicate that

respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint with respondent No.3/Bank seeking to secure the alleged proceeds of crime by directing the Bank to mark a lien over the petitioner’s account to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. However, it is

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17409 WP No. 4264 of 2026

HC-KAR

evident that the Bank, instead of confining its action to the said quantified amount, has proceeded to freeze the entire account of the petitioner. Such action, in the considered opinion of this Court, travels beyond the scope of the

communication issued by the Investigating Officer.

5. It is trite that while the Investigating Agency is

vested with the authority to take necessary measures to secure suspected proceeds of crime and to ensure availability of funds during the course of investigation, such power is not unbridled. The exercise of such power must be proportionate and tailored to the exigencies of the case. Freezing of an entire bank account, particularly when the alleged amount involved is specifically quantified, would amount to an excessive and unreasonable restriction, impinging upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to carry on trade and business. The action of respondent No.3/Bank, therefore, cannot be sustained to the extent it results in a complete embargo on the

operation of the account.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17409 W

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top