IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 34293 OF 2025

24.02.2026 Between: Md. Imran ….. Petitioner And Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services)

& others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that he maintains two bank accounts ie. SBI A/c No. 20227120719 and HDFC A/c No. 50100578007241 containing lawful savings of approximately Rs. 62,00,000/-, and both accounts were frozen on police instructions in connection with Crime No. 208 of 2025 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, without identification of any specific transaction or quantification of any amount allegedly linked to the offence. It is stated, though petitioner’s name appears in the mentioned crime, no material has been disclosed to demonstrate that the amounts lying in both the accounts constitute proceeds of crime or are directly connected to the alleged activity, and no nexus has been established between the alleged offence and the funds in the said accounts.

1.1. According to petitioner, the allegations in the FIR are vague and based on suspicion and freezing of the entire accounts, without segregation or earmarking of any particular amount, is alleged to be disproportionate, mechanical and without due application of mind, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner asserts that he has not committed any financial fraud or economic offence, and that the entire balance of approximately Rs. 62,00,000/- in the above accounts represents lawful income and family savings, and is not derived from any illegal activity.

1.2. It is further stated that complainant in the above crime has no locus standi, as he has not suffered any personal loss, has not lost even a single rupee, and has lodged a vague complaint against multiple You Tubers in general without specific accusation or evidence against petitioner, and therefore, freezing of petitioner’s accounts is not mandatory or justified on the basis of such complaint. Petitioner states that he was neither issued any prior notice nor afforded opportunity of hearing and no reasons were recorded to demonstrate linkage between the alleged offence and the funds, thereby violating principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.

1.3. It is contended, petitioner and his parents are suffering with ailments and freezing of bank accounts would cause severe personal and financial hardship. He therefore, is stated to have issued legal notice dated 04-11-2025 to respondent authorities explaining the above facts and seeking de-freezing of accounts, but the said notice was not acted upon or considered.

1.4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15352 of 2023 (Shainul Devani v. State of Telangana, dated 10.08.2023), wherein it was held that freezing of a bank account without establishing a clear nexus between the alleged offence and the funds amounts to non- application of mind and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, hence, directed immediate de-freezing when no prima facie material linking the funds to the offence was shown. Petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 25631 of 2024 (Mohammed Saifullah v. Reserve Bank of India dated 10.09.2024), wherein it was held that freezing of an entire bank account without quantifying the suspected amount or specifying the period of alleged illegal transactions violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, and that freezing must be restricted only to the amount suspected to be involved in the offence, as a blanket freeze cripples the fundamental right to livelihood. According to petitioner, the principles laid down in the above two judgments squarely apply to the present case, and even assuming that investigation in Crime No. 208 of 202