Allahabad High Court
GHANSHYAM TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court directed the bank to de‑freeze the petitioner’s savings account while holding back the disputed amounts, and permitted future freezing upon receipt of a new complaint.
Summary
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Tiwari, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing IDBI Bank to remove the lien and de‑freeze his savings account, which had been frozen due to two suspicious transactions of Rs.1,10,000 and Rs.8,00,000 under investigation. The bank argued that the freeze was justified, while the petitioner contended that only the disputed amounts should be held, not the entire account. The court examined the precedent set in Ashish Rawat v. Union of India (Writ‑C No. 1489 of 2026) and Khalsa Medical Store v. RBI (Writ‑C No. 12211 of 2025). Relying on those decisions, the court ordered the bank to de‑freeze the account but retain the lien on the disputed sums. It further allowed the bank to re‑freeze the account in the future if a new complaint is received from police or cyber‑crime authorities.
Issues considered
- Whether a bank may freeze an entire savings account on the basis of specific disputed transactions under Article 226 jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing de‑freezing of the account while retaining the lien on disputed amounts.
Subjects
- Article 226
- mandamus
- bank lien
- account freeze
- disputed transactions
- cyber crime
- savings account
- judicial relief
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35568 of 2026
Ghanshyam Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Kant Tiwari
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-bank and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to command
the respondent to de-freeze/remove the LIEN from the petitioner's Savings
Bank Account No.1811104000053297 in IDBI Bank, Branch Sector-51,
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned Counsel for the Bank has produced the statement of account,
which is marked as 'x' and retained on record. He pointed out two
transactions to be dubious in the said statement of account i.e. one
transaction of Rs.1,10,000/- and another of Rs.8,00,000/-, which are subject
matter of investigation.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if account
has been freezed on the basis of a complaint and for some disputed amount
the entire account should not be freezed. The bank can always put on hold
the disputed transactions while de-freezing the account for its operation.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the controversy
is no more res integra in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Ashish Rawat v. Union of India and 6 others (Writ - C No.- 1489 of
2026). He also placed reliance of judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Khalsa Medical Store Thru. Prop. Yashwant Singh v.
Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 3 others passed in Writ - C
WRIC No. 35568 of 2026
2
No.- 12211 of 2025 decided on 19th January, 2026.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may direct for
de-freezing the account of the petitioner by holding back the disputed
amount and the Court may also direct the bank to freeze the account again in
the event any further complaint is received or otherwise any direction is
received from the Cyber Crime department or the police department.
7. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition in terms of the directions
passed by this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India and 6
others passed in Writ- C No.- 1489 of 2026 decided on 8th April, 2026 and
direct the bank to de-freeze the current account of the petitioner by holding
back the disputed amount.
8. However, it will remain open for the bank to freeze the account of the
petitioner again in future if any complaint sought is received either from the
police department or cyber crime department.
September 9, 2026
S.P. (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SANJAY PURI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…