Disposed¶18

Prem Chand Maurya and 3 Others v. Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 6 Others

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2026WRIC/3558/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order; freezing/seizure of bank accounts by Directorate of Enforcement (respondent no.7); proceeds of crime; mandatory conditions before freezing bank accounts (complaint and quantum to be intimated to bank); defreezing after Court cognizance; Investigating Officer directed to appear with record; Writ-C 3558 of 2026; Prem Chand Maurya v. Reserve Bank of India; listed 28.04.2026; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: Investigating Officer of respondent no.7 to appear with the relevant record on the next date; written instructions of respondent no.7 taken on record; case listed on 28.04.2026 in the top ten cases. ¶18

Prem Chand Maurya and 3 Others vs Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the seizure/freezing of the petitioners' bank accounts by respondent no.7 was lawful and in accordance with law. +2 more

¶17

Court's answer

Seizure of bank accounts can be made only in accordance with law where sufficient material is available with the respondents; the Court noted that several mandatory conditions must be fulfilled before bank accounts are frozen.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer of respondent no.7 was directed to appear before the Court on the next date of listing with the relevant record to answer the Court's queries and to indicate that the freezing was lawful and the defreezing was carried out immediately upon it coming to light that the accounts were not linked to the proceeds of crime.

¶17

Key takeaways

The mandatory pre-freezing conditions (informing the bank of the complaint and of the quantum linked to the proceeds of crime) were not shown to have been fulfilled - no such fact was brought forth by counsel for respondent no.7.obiter¶16
No satisfactory response was forthcoming from respondent no.7 as to when it realized or came to know that the accounts were not linked to the proceeds of crime.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 5 (Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.) - interim order in Writ-C No. 3558 of 2026, Prem Chand Maurya and 3 others v. Reserve Bank of India thru. Governor and 6 others. Counsel for respondent no.7 (Directorate of Enforcement) informed the Court that the petitioners' frozen bank accounts had been released and the bank intimated on 21.04.2026, apparently only after the Court took cognizance, and orally stated that the accounts were not found linked to any proceeds of crime. The Court observed that seizure of bank accounts is permissible only in accordance with law where sufficient material exists with the respondents, and that the mandatory pre-freezing conditions - informing the bank of the complaint and of the quantum of money linked to the proceeds of crime - had not been brought forth by respondent no.7; no satisfactory response was given as to when respondent no.7 learnt the accounts were not linked to the proceeds of crime. The Investigating Officer was directed to appear on the next date with the relevant record to justify the lawfulness of the freezing and the immediacy of the defreezing. Written instructions of respondent no.7 were taken on record and the matter was listed on 28.04.2026 in the top ten cases. No statute or precedent was cited by name in this order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3558 of 2026

¶3

Prem Chand Maurya And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manish Kumar Mishra, Ashish Kumar Gupta, Mahendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Amit Sharma, Anurag Srivastava, Kuldeep Srivastava

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.7 i.e. Directorate of Enforcement, Sri Amal Rastogi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶12

Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.7 has informed this Court that the accounts of the petitioners, which were frozen, have been released and an intimation to the bank has been given on 21.04.2026. It seems that it is only when this Court has taken cognizance of this matter, in a hurried manner that the bank accounts have been released and it has been orally informed by learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that the bank accounts were not found to be linked or to have any proceeds of crime. This Court has further asked as to when respondent no.7 realized or came to know of the fact that the said accounts were not linked to the proceeds of crime, no satisfactory response is coming forth.

¶13

In the present case, it is the bank accounts of the petitioners which were seized and such a seizure can be made only in accordance with law in case there was sufficient material available with the respondents. We also find that the aspect of seizing of bank accounts has been the subject matter of several judgments where there are several mandatory conditions to be fulfilled before bank accounts are to be frozen, namely, that the bank has to be informed about the

¶14

WRIC No. 3558 of 2026

¶15

¶16

complaint and the quantum of money which is linked to the proceeds of crime has also to be intimated to the bank, no such fact has been brought forth by the learned counsel for respondent no.7.

¶17

Let the Investigating Officer appear before this Court on the next date of listing with the relevant record to answer all the aforesaid queries and to indicate that the action of freezing the accounts was lawful and that the defreezing was carried out immediately upon it coming to light that the said bank accounts were not linked to the proceeds of crime under investigation by respondent no.7.

¶18

Accordingly, list this case on 28.04.2026 in the top ten cases.

¶19

The written instructions produced by learned counsel for respondent no.7 are taken on record.

¶20

April 22, 2026 Ashish Dewal

¶21

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Chand Maurya and 3 Others v. Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand Maurya and 3 Others v. Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harihar Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko an 10 Others

Kamna Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Magistrate Raibareli and 6 Others

Pramod Kumar vs Chief General Manager (Cgm) India Bank Lko. and 2 Others

Abhimanyu Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Canara Bank Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. vs State of U.P. Thru. Finance Secy. Lko. and 6 Others

Ram Vinod Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Another