Saqlain Haneef Dumba v. The Union Of Inida

(1) 10wp18.26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.18/2026 Saqlain Haneef Dumba .VS. Union of India and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Amol S. Ramteke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V. A. Patait, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

DATE :

APRIL 6, 2026.

In execution of the bailable warrant, Mr. Jitendra Arunrao Shendre, Branch Manager of respondent No.3 is present. 2.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following substantive reliefs:

"(i) Direct the respondent 2 and 3 to remove the freeze marked on account (IndusInd Bank A/c100109497968 IFSC Code INDB0000274) of petitioner;

(ii) Direct Respondent No. 1 to amend the existing mechanism of freezing marking lien of the beneficiary accounts by formulating proper standard operating procedures including providing reasonable and time bound opportunity to beneficiaries, whose accounts are likely to be affected, to prove their innocence." 3.

So far as prayer clause (ii) is concerned, counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has put in place the Standard Operating System ("SOP") since January, 2026 and, therefore, he is not pressing for order in this regard. His grievance now is to the extent of de-freezing his account.

4.

Counsel for respondent No.3 has tendered across the bar reply affidavit. It is taken on record. Our attention is invited to notice issued by respondent No.2. It appears that notice has been issued under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 and under Section 2A of the Bankers Books Of Evidence Act,

(2) 10wp18.26 1891 calling upon respondent No.3 to lien mark and provide details of the account of petitioner for the purpose of investigation. 5.

Respondent No.3 has acted upon the said communication. However, respondent No.3 has debit freezed the account. He failed to recognize that respondent No.2 has instructed respondent No.3 to lien mark, which means to freeze the amount allegedly derived from the proceeds of the crime which, in the present case, is Rs.50,000/- whereas the credit balance in the account of petitioner was Rs.1,93,856/-.

6.

At this stage, counsel for respondent No.3 submits that corrective steps will be taken and the account will be de-freezed by making lien mark for Rs.50,000/-.

7.

The statement is accepted.

8.

The corrective steps shall be taken today itself. 9.

The petitioner is satisfied with the above development, which, in a way, will serve the purpose of filing the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale