Rahul Meena Vs Reserve Bank of India

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.05.1410:17:58 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:22702

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 6226 of 2025

¶7

Rahul Meena S/o Kishan Lal Aged About 46 Years Proprietor Of FirmLegal Eagle Located At B - 30, Meghdoot Complex, M.G. Road, Raipur492001, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Reserve Bank Of India Through -Department Of Supervision, Subhashish Parisar, Satya Prem Vihar, Sundar Nagar, Raipur-492013, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Pandri Branch, Raipur-492009, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Relationship Manager, Indusind Bank Pandri Branch, Raipur492009, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Regional Manager, Indusind Bank Colors Mall, Pachpedinaka, Raipur-492001, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Regional Nodal Officer, Indusind Bank Colors Mall, Pachpedinaka, Raipur-492001, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - The Commissioner Of Police Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

¶16

7 - Sub Inspector (S I) Police Station Indrapuram, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title t	aken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 to 5	: Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate

¶19

2

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶21

13.05.2026

¶22

1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the action of the respondent authorities in freezing the petitioner’s current bank account bearing No. 201029834807, allegedly in connection with a non-existent criminal case and without any material indicating involvement of the said account in any unlawful transaction. The petitioner further alleges that the impugned action has been taken arbitrarily, without adherence to due process of law, and with mala fide intent, thereby causing severe financial hardship, reputational damage, and infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶23

“ 10.1 Direct the respondents unfreeze the illegally frozen current account.

¶24

10.2 Direct the respondents to compensate the losses occurred to the arbitrary freezing of account.

¶25

10.3 Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶26

10.4 Pass any other or further order or orders, direction or directions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, proper, and equitable in the

¶27

3

¶28

facts and circumstances of the present case, and in the paramount interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. ”

¶29

2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5/IndusInd Bank submits that the petitioner is maintaining a current account with the aforesaid Bank and an intimation/instruction was received from the Cyber Cell, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that certain suspicious and fraudulent transactions were routed through the said account and, therefore, a request was made to freeze the account in question. It is further submitted that upon receipt of such communication, the concerned Bank, in compliance of the instructions issued by the Cyber Cell, proceeded to place a debit freeze over the petitioner’s account. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the Bank repeatedly requested the concerned Cyber Cell to furnish details regarding the alleged fraudulent transactions, including the exact amount involved, particulars of the complainant, and supporting material forming the basis of such action, so as to enable the Bank to verify the allegations and proceed in accordance with law. However, despite several e-mails and communications sent by the Bank authorities, no response or requisite particulars were furnished by the concerned authority.

¶30

3 Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no fraudulent amount has ever been credited or deposited in the

¶31

4

¶32

petitioner’s current account and the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with any alleged cyber offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is an educationist by profession and the account in question is being used for legitimate financial transactions connected with his professional activities. It is further contended that the freezing of the petitioner’s account has been done in a wholly arbitrary and mechanical manner without any preliminary verification, without supplying any material to the petitioner, and without there being any nexus between the petitioner’s account and the alleged offence. It is argued that such action has caused serious financial hardship, adversely affecting the petitioner’s dayto-day transactions, reputation, and livelihood, and therefore the impugned action is violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

4 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

5 Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that though the account of the petitioner has been frozen pursuant to a communication issued by the Cyber Cell, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, admittedly no details with regard to the alleged fraudulent transaction, the amount involved, or the nature of accusation have been supplied either to the concerned Bank or placed before this Court. It is also not in dispute that despite repeated communications made by the respondent-Bank seeking

¶35

5

¶36

necessary particulars from the concerned Cyber Cell, no substantive response has been furnished. In absence of any specific material indicating the involvement of the petitioner or disclosure of the exact amount allegedly connected with the offence, continuation of the freezing order merely on the basis of suspicion cannot be permitted indefinitely.

¶37

6 This Court is of the considered opinion that freezing of a bank account directly affects the financial and business activities of an individual and such action must be supported by cogent material and due procedure established under law. Since the respondents have failed to disclose any concrete material justifying the continued operation of the debit freeze upon the petitioner’s account, this Court deems it appropriate to direct de-freezing of the account in question.

¶38

7 Accordingly, the respondent-Bank is directed to de-freeze the current account of the petitioner forthwith, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall maintain proper cooperation with the concerned authorities and shall furnish such information/documents as may be required by the respondentBank or concerned Cyber Cell in connection with the enquiry/investigation, if any. The petitioner shall also appear before the concerned authority as and when required for the purpose of investigation.

¶39

6

¶40

8 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Yogesh

Rahul Meena v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Meena v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsingh Reddy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sesh Narayan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Kumar Raj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Vs Girwar Lal

Sajal Kumar Roy Vs Union of India