Vysakh Nair Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandmaus declaring the actions of the Respondent No 2 to 3 in directing the Respondent No 4 without any information intimation to the Petitioner to freeze the Petitioners Bank Account with Kowdiyar Branch Trivandrum bearing A/c No 038905500051 with Kowdiyar Branch Trivandrum IFSC Code ICIC0006262 as illegal arbitrary highhanded apart from being violative of Articles 14 19 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the action of the Respondent No 2 to 4 in freezing the Petitioners Bank Account with ICICI Bank Trivandrum bearing A/c No 038905500051 with Kowdiyar Branch Trivandrum IFSC Code ICIC0006262 and pass….”

¶30

No representation for respondent No.4/Bank.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶32

Assistant Government Pleader.

¶33

Mr. T.S. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the actions of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in directing Respondent No.4, without any information or intimation to the petitioner, to freeze the petitioner’s bank account with Kowdiyar Branch, Trivandrum, bearing A/c No.038905500051 with Kowdiyar Branch, Trivandrum, IFSC Code: ICIC0006262, are illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written

¶35

instructions, submits that the respondent police, at no point of time, have

¶36

3

¶37

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.29481 of 2024

¶38

Dated 07.03.2026

¶39

received any complaint either from the petitioner or from any other person in this regard. It is further submitted that the allegations raised by the petitioner are financial in nature and the respondent police are in no way concerned with such matters. The respondent police have never instructed Respondent No.4 Bank to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have arrayed the cyber crime authorities as respondents in the present Writ Petition.

¶40

Though Respondent No.4, on 05.10.2024, mentioned that a lien was marked for an amount of Rs.76,000/-, the account of the petitioner bearing No. 038905500051 has been frozen. Respondent No.4, pursuant to the directions of the cyber crime team or any competent authority, can either freeze the account or mark a lien for certain suspicious transactions or amounts. However, Respondent No.4 has no authority to freeze the entire account when the lien is only for a specific amount. The petitioner is doing business and if the entire account is frozen, it would cripple his financial transactions and business activities.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No.4 to mark lien only to the extent of suspicious transactions for an amount of Rs.76,000/- or any other suspicious amounts or transactions and to defreeze the petitioner’s account bearing No.038905500051. However, it is made clear that whenever any cyber crime authority or any departmental official issues any

¶42

4

¶43

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.29481 of 2024 Dated 07.03.2026

¶44

communication for further freezing of any suspicious transactions, Respondent No.4 is at liberty to act in accordance with law.

¶45