N.Nafis Ahmed v. The Senior Manager,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :25.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 1083 of 2026 N.Nafis Ahmed ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Senior Manager, Zonal Office, HDFC Bank Ltd., No.131, Melur Main Road, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

2.The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, No.145, Muslim Bazar, Keelakarai, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanatharpuram District.

3.The Commissioner, Pune Police, Near Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Church Path, Camp, Pune-411001, Maharashtra.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the

respondents to defreeze the petitioner's account in A/C.No. 50200093570706 with the second respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2026 and for other reliefs within a period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.I.Kalantaraasik Ahamadu

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's account in A/C.No.50200093570706 with the second respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2026.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner is holding a current account bearing A/c No. 50200093570706, HDFC Bank, Keelakarai Branch, Ramanatharpuram District.

(b) The petitioner came to know that his account had been frozen.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal case; the act of the first respondent freezing the entire account is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner; that though pursuant to the alleged communication sent by the third respondent , the 2nd respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the 2nd respondent ought to have informed the petitioner about the action taken thereon; and that having failed to do so, it has breached the contract with the petitioner.

4. On perusal of the records, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the third respondent had requested the second respondent to freeze the entire account. The fact is that account has been frozen and the petitioner is unable to operate the account.

5. It is seen that in similar circumstances, this Court had observed that when the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, the freezing of the whole account would not be justified. Similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 dated

15.07.2024, wherein, it was held that:

"3. The respondent is permitted to retain the aforesaid sum by marking lien on the petitioner's account. Subject to such marking of lien, the petitioner is permitted to operate their bank account. The freezing effected on the petitioner's bank account is lifted to the aforesaid extent. T\his writ petition stands allowed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of on the following directions:

(a). The 2nd respondent / Bank shall keep only a lien amount of Rs.1,24,645/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith (b). The petitioner is at liberty to move to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien marked over the quantified amount, if he is so advised.

25.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes vsg

To 1.The Senior Manager, Zonal Office, HDFC Bank Ltd., No.131, Melur Main Road, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

2.The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, No.145, Muslim Bazar, Keelakarai, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanatharpuram District.

3.The Commissioner, Pune Police, Near Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Church Path, Camp, Pune-411001, Maharashtra.

S.SRIMATHY, J vsg W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 1083 of 2026 25.02.2026