Bank to defreeze account retaining lien over disputed cyber fraud amount, permitting operations.

PRAYER: The writ petition criminal filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to defreeze the account of the petitioner bearing No.18751000005534 maintained with the 2^nd respondent and further direct the 2^nd respondent to furnish a copy of the order said to have been issued by the 1^st respondent to freeze the account and pass such other order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of this case and render justice.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Udhayasankar (VC)

For Respondent(s): Mr. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PP FOR R1 Mr.C. MOHAN FOR M/s. King and Partridge for R2

ORDER

The writ petition criminal has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to defreeze the account of the petitioner bearing No.18751000005534 maintained with the 2^nd respondent and further direct the 2^nd respondent to furnish a copy of the order said to have been issued by the 1^st respondent to freeze the account.

2.This Court in an earlier occasion i.e. on 24.03.2026 passed the following order:

“The petitioner, whose bank account has been frozen by the second respondent Bank on the directions of the first respondent, has filed the present Writ Petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is employed with HCL Technologies and maintains a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 18751000005534 with the second respondent Bank. He is also a preferred customer of the Bank. While so, without any prior notice, the said account was abruptly frozen on 23.07.2025, bringing all his financial transactions to a grinding halt. The petitioner, being a software engineer and tech-savvy individual, relies entirely on digital transactions through his smartphone for his day-to-day needs, including purchase of provisions, payment of dues, statutory payments, and medical expenses. The said account is also his salary account.

3. The petitioner had addressed a representation to the second respondent Bank seeking reasons for freezing the account. However, the Bank merely informed him that the account had been frozen pursuant to instructions received from the office of the Inspector of Police, Kalyanpur Police Station, Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh West, without furnishing any further details. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court, in Success Signs, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.G.Raja Vs. Station House Officer, Ghazidabad Cyber Crime Police Station and another , reported in (2020 SCC OnLine Mad 791), had directed the Bank to retain lien over the disputed amount and permitted operation of the account.

A similar order may be passed in the present case.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank opposed the submissions and stated that the lien has been marked strictly in compliance with the directions issued by the first respondent. It is further submitted that the first respondent has specifically instructed the Bank not only to freeze the account but also to prohibit any debit transactions, indicating that an investigation is presently underway and further facts are yet to be ascertained. The learned counsel sought a short accommodation to obtain further instructions and clarification from the first respondent and to place the same before this Court. It was also submitted that, in the meantime, the petitioner may furnish a copy of the communication received from the first respondent to the second respondent Bank.

5. Notice to the first respondent, returnable by 15.04.2026.

Private notice is also permitted.

6. Post the matter on 15.04.2026 for filing report.”

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken private notice to the first respondent/Inspector of Police, Kalyanapur Police Station, Utta