High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/19498/2025

Mudita Kalia v. State Bank Of India And ORS

2026-04-16Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh5 pages

Adv Ratnesh Kumar and Adv Karmveer versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through:

Mr Ranjeev Khatana (SPC),Mr Rohit Kapoor,Mr Arjav Sethi, Advs.

Ms Nisha Sharma and Ms Tanya Chowdhary, Advs. for R2 Mr Santosh Kumar Rout SC Ms. Vairagi, Adv. for SBI(Appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 16.04.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- "I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 Bank to lift/remove the Lien/Hold status marked on the Petitioner's Savings Bank Account No. 20168478737 maintained with its Sector 23, Dwarka Branch, Delhi - 110075, in respect of the amount of Rs. 13,48,573/- in pursuance of the directives issued by Respondent No. 3; AND/OR The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

II. Direct Respondents Nos. 3 to furnish to the Petitioner, complete details of any specific allegations against the Petitioner (if any) relatable to the FIR No. 576/2025 u/s 66(D) IT Act & 318 (4) 319 (2) BNS lodged with North East CEN Crime Police Station, Yelahanka, Bangalore City dated 21.10.2025; AND III. Direct Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to forthwith notify/implement a uniform policy, standard operating procedures and guidelines to ensure that such matters are handled with requisite consideration; AND IV. Award exemplary costs and compensation in favor of the Petitioner for suffering harassment, mental agony and anxiety;..."

The petitioner has been making investments with M/s WO Trade Ventures Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2024 and made an investment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. On 21.10.2025, the FIR No. 576/2025 was registered with North-East Crime Branch Police, Bangalore regarding certain transactions of ICICI Account No. 20168478737. 3.

On 13.11.2025, the petitioner received an SMS from the respondent No. 1 i.e., State Bank of India informing that a hold has been placed on her account for Rs. 13,48,573/- due to the aforesaid FIR No. 576/2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed. 4.

Ms. Vairagi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, draws my attention to an email dated 04.11.2025 received from CEN Police Station, North-East Division, Bangalore City-560 064, which reads as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

She states that the bank in compliance of the aforesaid request by the concerned police station has marked a lien on the account of the petitioner to the aforesaid extent as mentioned in the serial No. 4 of the aforesaid communication.

I am of the view that in the present case, the petitioner is a 54-year old lady and all her life savings have been marked on lien and the business has also been affected on account of the aforesaid action by the respondents.

It is stated by the petitioner, that the petitioner is neither an accused nor even named in the FIR.

In this view of the matter, putting an account on lien has serious consequences and it is only as an extreme step to save the amount from being frittered away that such drastic measures should be imposed. 9.

The petitioner is a citizen of India, there are no criminal antecedents, and the petitioner has no other involvement in any crime, there are no allegations that the petitioner is permanently leaving the country or any other contention of like nature.

10. In this view of the matter, the freezing of an account is akin to an attachment of the asset of an individual which, according to my mind, cannot be allowed solely on the basis of an opinion formed on surmises and conjectures.

11. If the enforcement agencies have serious reasons, the same needs to be spelt out while putting an account of an individual on debit freeze/lien, the reasons for the same must be stated in the order communicated to the bank before the account is put on debit freeze/lien. The same is missing The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

in the present case.

12. Additionally, the actions of both the enforcement agencies as well as the respondent No. 1 bank suffers from violation of Principles of Natural Justice as the petitioner has been saddled with consequences of putting a lien on Rs. 13,48,573/- without any Show Cause Notice, calling upon the petitioner for hearing or giving her any reasonable opportunity to present her side of the case.

13. For the said reasons, the impugned action of placing lien on the account of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the lien imposed on the account of the petitioner stands removed.

15. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with the present petition.

JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 16, 2026 / (MS) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.