Restricting access to funds must adhere to due process, ensuring account holder rights are not infringed, especially without proper communication.

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.15499 of 2025 Bala Manikandan ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001.

2.The Branch Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank, Thirumangalam Branch, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu. ...Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No.2, Equitas Small Finance Bank, Thirumangalam Branch, to partially defreeze the petitioner's account by relating Rs.70,000/- under freeze and to allow the petitioner to operate the remainder of the balance.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Yeswanth For R3 : M/s.M.Aasha Government Advocate

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No.2, Equitas Small Finance Bank, Thirumangalam Branch, to defreeze the petitioner's account and to allow the petitioner to operate the account.

2.The issue that many of the citizens currently face is the freezing of the account on instruction from the local Police or from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Many a times, the account holders have been taken into surprise that by such order of freezing, before they could realize as to why and for what purpose the accounts are freezed, enough damages are caused to their day to day financial life, since the very lifeline of the business gets severed by such unilateral orders of account freezing passed by the Police.

3. No doubt, the statutes empower the investigation agency to request the Bank to freeze the account pending investigation and intimate it forthwith to the jurisdiction Court, but whether the power is properly exercised or not is the moot question now looming large and in the several judgments of the Courts across the India, it had been categorically held that there cannot be freezing of account perpetually without intimating the account holders what for their account is freezed and what extent it has to be freezed. Even then, day in and day out, this Court receives applications to defreeze the account pointing out the failure of the investigating agency not only to the account holders, even to the jurisdictional Court not intimating about the freezing of the account as per Section 102 of Cr.P.C. equivalent to 106 of BNSS Act.

4. This is a case where the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.3 of

2025 registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 2^nd respondent has been instructed to freeze the account of the petitioner herein. The communication received by the Bank indicates that around Rs. 70,000/- is the suspected money involved in the subject matter of the crime under investigation. Meticulously, in reference to the notice from the 3^rd respondent, the

2^nd respondent has freezed the account.

5. The 3^rd respondent Inspector nor the Bank had informed the petitioner as to why the account is freezed and how long the account will be kept under freeze. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for Mandamus to release the amount in his account by ordering de-freezing of the account.

6. When similar issues came up for consideration in Crl. OP No.

10569 of 2021 vide order dated 18.06.2021, the learned Judge of his Court, directed the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Greater Chennai, to give necessary instructions and directions to his personnel in conducting investigation in cases where freezing of account is required and ensure that there is no colourable exercise of power. Accordingly, the