Allahabad High Court
AKHAND PRATAP SINGHversusRESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petitioner must apply to the concerned bank for defreezing, and the bank must decide the application within two weeks, as per the precedent in Ashish Rawat v. Union of India.
Summary
Petitioner Akhand Pratap Singh filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the defreezing of his SBI and HDFC bank accounts, alleging that they were frozen without prior intimation. The respondents, the Reserve Bank of India and the two banks, contended that the freeze was justified on the basis of a complaint lodged with an investigating agency and the presence of doubtful transactions, and further argued that the accounts could not be operational until the petitioner completed the KYC requirements under the banking rules. The Court examined whether the freeze complied with procedural fairness and the statutory KYC mandate. It held that the petitioner must first apply to the concerned bank for defreezing, after which the bank must decide the request within two weeks, in accordance with the precedent set in Ashish Rawat v. Union of India. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts without prior intimation violates his fundamental rights under Article 226.
- Whether the banks are justified in freezing the accounts on the basis of a complaint and incomplete KYC compliance.
- Whether the petitioner is required to approach the bank for defreezing before seeking relief from the court.
Subjects
- bank account freeze
- KYC
- Article 226
- defreezing
- investigating agency
- banking rules
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36408 of 2026
Akhand Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Reserve Bank Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, Siddharth
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Satish Chaturvedi
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Imran
Syed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 bank.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, petitioner has prayed for defreezing of bank
account nos. 337112500053360 (SBI) and
50100801022470 (HDFC Bank).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his
bank accounts have been freezed without intimating him
about it.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submits that not only the petitioner's account has been
freezed for the complaint received by the Investigating
Agency, there being doubtful transactions in his account
but even otherwise the account of the petitioner cannot be
made operational unless the KYC as required under the
Banking Rules is completed at the end of the petitioner.
WRIC No. 36408 of 2026
2
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to apply
before the concerned respondent for de-freezing of the
accounts. If he does so, the concerned respondent shall
decide the same within a further period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order,
in the light of the judgment of this Court in Ashish
Rawat v. Union of India and 6 others, passed in Writ-C
No. 1489 of 2026, decided on 08.04.2026.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 11, 2026
IrfanUddin
Digitally signed by :-
IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…