G.Deepak v. Inspector of Police

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

¶2The 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.

¶3The 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 Page3 of 9 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.

¶4Per 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.

¶5Notice to the first respondent, returnable by 15.04.2026. Private notice is also permitted.

¶6Post the matter on 15.04.2026 for filing report." Page4 of 9

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken private notice to the first respondent/Inspector of Police, Kalyanapur Police Station, Uttar Pradesh West and the same was delivered on 04.04.2026. Proof of delivery has been produced.

4.The learned counsel for the second respondent bank today produced the communication dated 02.07.2024 received from the cyber crime cell DCP Kanpur Nagar directing the bank to freeze the petitioner's account No.18751 000005534 and also to provide other details of the petitioner. Accordingly, all the required details were called for and sent to the Cyber Crime Cell, Kanpur. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent on 22.07.2025 seeking further directions with regard to said communication.

5.Today, he produced a copy of the communication, which shows that fraudulent amount reported in the complaint is Rs.95,12,000/-, whereas, insofar as the petitioner's account is concerned, the transaction involved is only Rs.1,65,023/- which took place in Uttar Pradesh West. The said communications are scanned and extracted hereunder: Page5 of 9 Page6 of 9 Page7 of 9 Page8 of 9

6.Now, the amount of Rs.l,65,023/- is disputed. In view of the same, by keeping a sum of Rs.1,65,023/-, a lien, the second respondent bank is directed to defreeze the petitioner's bank account and the petitioner is permitted to operate the same.

7.With the above direction, the writ petition (Crl.) is disposed of. 15-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms To

¶1Inspector of Police Kalyanapur Police Station, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh West.

¶2The Chief Managar HDFC Bank Ltd Nandambakkam Chennai - 600089. WPoCrl.oNo.o388oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMAR,oJ. sms WPoCrl.oNo.o388oofo2026 15-04-2026 Page9oofo9

Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR G.Deepak S/o.N.Gnanagunaseelan, S-1, Lakshmi Apartments, 19B, Rajalakshmi Nagar 9th Cross, 100Ft Road, Velachery, Chennai 600 042. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Inspector of Police Kalyanapur Police Station, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh West. 2. The Chief Managar HDFC Bank Ltd Nandambakkam Chennai - 600089. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The writ petition criminal filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to defreeze the account of the petitioner bearing No.18751000005534 maintained with the 2nd respondent and further direct the 2nd respondent to furnish a copy of the order said to have been issued by the 1st 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 A.Rexy Josephine Mary FOR M/s. King and Partridge for R2 Page2 of 9