IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3923 OF 2025 BETWEEN: HDFC BANK BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER ISHAN MITTAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O KULDEEP MITTAL, No.3909-391, MORI GATE CASHMERE GATE, NEW DELHI 110006 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY …PETITIONER Location: High Court of (BY MS. SONA RAJ KUMAR, ADV.

Karnataka FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NORTH EAST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY., REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560001

2. SANJIV POOJARY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE P.V.POOJARY No.C-03 ALMOND TREE, KENACHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.PUSHPALATH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, SRI. SANCHAN JAINANDAN ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 PASSED IN CR.NO.177/2024 BY PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF XLV ADDL.C.J.M COURT AT BANGALORE, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 30-07-2024 by which a direction is issued by the XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore to defreeze the accounts of the respondent No.2 and transfer the amount to the bank account of the respondent No.2.

2. Heard Ms. Sona Raj Kumar alongwith Sri. Joseph Anilkumar A., learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B. Pushpalatha learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Sanchan Jainandan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

3.1. It is the case of the respondent No.2 - complainant that, on the pretext of earning money through stock trading he was lured through whatsapp into transferring large sums of money to various bank accounts and he was defrauded by those account holders who received the said amounts. An FIR in Crime No.177 of 2024 comes to be registered against unknown persons. Pursuant to the registration of the crime a debit freeze order is issued by the investigating officer to freeze certain bank accounts which received the said amount belonging to the respondent No.2 – complainant. The respondent No.2 then files an application before the concerned Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., seeking release of ₹55,95,400/- belonging to the petitioner, out of which a sum of ₹47,82,662/- was deposited in the bank account belonging to one ALI Traders maintained by the petitioner – bank. The concerned Court allows the application. Accordingly, the petitioner-bank was directed to defreeze the account and disburse an amount of ₹47,82,662/- to the respondent No.2. It is challenging this order of defreezing, the petitioner-bank is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said account maintained by the petitioner – bank standing in the name of Ali Traders was already freezed by the petitioner upon the direction of the Bihar Police. Therefore, it is the submission of the petitioners that when the account is already frozen, the same cannot be directed to be defreezed upon the directions of the concerned Court.

5. The learned counsels for the respondents would in unison submit that the concerned Court has allowed the said application of the respondent No.2 after imposing certain conditions. Therefore, the petitioner – bank cannot now refuse to defreeze the account solely relying on the order of the Bihar Police.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Since the entire issue springs from the order directing the defreezing, I deem it appropriate