Allahabad High Court
VIKRAM NAYYAR @ SANJEEV NAYYAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
In the absence of a court order of attachment, the bank must defreeze the account upon a proper application by the account holder, as directed by the court.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a direction to the respondent bank to defreeze two of their accounts that had been frozen during a police investigation related to a criminal complaint against one of them. The petitioners argued that no court order of attachment existed and that the accounts were not part of the criminal trial, therefore the bank should have defrozen them after the charge‑sheet was filed. The respondents contended that the petitioners had not approached the bank directly nor produced any court order authorising defreezing. The court noted that while there was no attachment order, the petitioners must first apply to the bank’s branch manager for defreezing. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners to file such an application within two weeks, after which the bank should defreeze the accounts in accordance with the precedent set in Ashish Rawat v. Union of India.
Issues considered
- Whether a bank is obligated to defreeze an account in the absence of a court order of attachment after a criminal investigation has concluded
- Whether the petitioner must approach the bank directly before seeking judicial intervention for defreezing
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- bank account freeze
- defreezing
- writ petition
- Article 226
- police investigation
- attachment
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28511 of 2025
Vikram Nayyar @ Sanjeev Nayyar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ambuj Mishra, Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Syed Imran Ibrahim, C.S.C., Ramesh
Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ambuj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
nos. 2 and 3.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondent-bank to defreeze the
bank account of the petitioners bearing account nos. 914010014455444 and
914010016914060.
3. It is submitted that though there was some complaint lodged against the
petitioner no. 1 by a third party in which criminal trial took place but these
two bank accounts were not in question; nor were subjected to any
attachment by the order of the competent court except for the complaint
made by the police during investigation to the bank to freeze the account. It
is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the bank account has neither
been seized nor attached as a result of the criminal trial against the
petitioners and hence there is no order of the competent court of law
directing the bank to attach the account. In the circumstances therefore it is
pleaded that since the bank account was freezed only during investigation by
the police, upon subsequent submission of the charge-sheet trial had been
held, the accounts in question not being questioned the bank ought to have
defreezed the accounts. He has also placed reliance upon the authority of this
Court in the case of Ashish Rawat vs. Union of India and 6 others (Writ -
C No.1489 of 2026 along with connected writ petitions, decided on
08.04.2026).
WRIC No. 28511 of 2025
2
4. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and
3 that the petitioners have neither approached the bank itself nor produced an
order of court of law so as to enable the bank to pass orders on the
application for defreezing the account.
5. Upon a pointed query being made, Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim fairly concedes
that there was no order of attachment in respect of these two bank accounts,
however he could not demonstrate as to whether there was any dispute of
transaction in these two bank accounts of the petitioner, which have been
freezed.
6. In view of the above, we direct the petitioners to move an application
before the Branch Manager of the concerned branch of the bank within two
weeks from today and in the event, such application is filed, the respondent-
bank would defreeze the bank account of the petitioners in view of the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat (supra).
May 14, 2026
Pratima
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRATIMA AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…