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) 22001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Axis Bank Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 2257 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Unnikrishnan M.
For the Respondents: Smt B Pushpalatha

A bank must be given an opportunity to be heard before a court orders the defreezing and transfer of funds from an account to ensure the order is executable and does not conflict with other freeze orders.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Release of Frozen Accounts - Opportunity of Hearing - A financial institution must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before a Magistrate orders the defreezing and transfer of funds, particularly to verify account balances and avoid conflicts with other judicial directives. (Para 4, 7)

Issues: Whether the petitioner bank is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the trial court orders the defreezing and transfer of funds from the accounts of an accused.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE 45TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN CRIME NO.69/2024, i.e., ANNEXURE-C IN TERMS OF WHICH, THE PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO DEFREEZE THE SAVINGS/ CURRENT ACCOUNT BEARING A/C NO.915010006393412 AND A/C NO.922040079794580 MAINTAINED IN THE PETITIONERS BANK AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

THIS CRL.P IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri M Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt B Pushpalatha, learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in all identical cases, the co-ordinate Benches have allowed the petitions and remitted the matter back to the office of the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioners to file their objections with liberty to appear and then consider applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. I deem it appropriate to quote the orders so passed in Crl.P.No.1787/2023 dated 14.12.2023:

"

ORDER

The Petitioner which is a Financial Institution is before this Court challenging the order passed by 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on an application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant/respondent No.2 directing the petitioner-Bank to defreeze the amount belonging to the accused and transfer the said amount to the bank account of the complainants/respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner’s concern is that the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate cannot be executed because it surpasses the specified release amount, and numerous courts across the Country have issued directives to the investigating agencies to unfreeze the bank accounts of the accused therein.

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on instructions would suggest that the matter may be remanded to the Jurisdictional Courts to consider the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. afresh, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Admittedly, multiple cases are registered against the accused herein within the State and across the country and there are multiple orders passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrates directing the petitioner to unfreeze the account of the accused and transfer the amount to the bank account of the complainants. The passing of multiple orders has caused difficulty to the petitioner/bank in executing the said order, since the amount ordered to be released in some accounts exceeds the amount available in the subject accounts of the accused. Therefore, the learned Magistrate before passing an order directing the petitioner to unfreeze and transfer the amount to the accounts of the complainants, is required to hear the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed

ii. The order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Cr.No.452/2021 is hereby set aside.

iii. Matter is remanded to 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to reconsider the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. afresh, after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

iv. Till the application is disposed of, the petitioner/bank is restrained from releasing the money in favour of any person from the subject account."

In Crl.P.No.13487/2023 c/w. Crl.P.Nos. 10201/2023, 12091/2023, 13483/2023, 13489/2023, 13611/2023, 13627/2023, 13940/2023, 13955/2023, 98/2024, 128/2024, 356/2024, 357/2024 dated 12.02.2024:

"7. Having heard the arguments of both side, perused the records. The Trial Courts have passed the impugned orders in these cases for de-freezing the accounts of the customers a

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