Allowed¶15

Rohit Kohli and Anr. v. Gnctd and Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) – Bank account freezing

Delhi HC14 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/11326/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC writ order; petitioners Rohit Kohli and another vs GNCTD and others; bank account de-freeze; freezing at instance of Uttarakhand Police; no intimation of disputed amount under criminal complaint to Bank; unilateral freeze without hearing paralyzed business; accounts in prayer 'a' ordered de-freezed; police liberty to act on concrete material with notice to petitioners; order dated 14.01.2026; Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.

What did the court decide?

De-freezing of the bank account numbers mentioned in prayer 'a' by the concerned Bank, with liberty reserved to the police to act on concrete material subject to notice to the petitioners. ¶15

Rohit Kohli and Anr. Vs Gnctd and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

De-freezing of the bank account numbers mentioned in prayer 'a' by the concerned Bank, with liberty reserved to the police to act on concrete material subject to notice to the petitioners.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the freezing of the petitioners' bank accounts should continue when the police authorities have failed to intimate the Bank of the specific amount which is the subject matter of the criminal complaint, leaving no basis for the continued freeze. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court found there is no reason for the freezing of the petitioners' account to continue; there must be some basis justifying the continuous freezing, and the continued freeze is highly prejudicial to the petitioners' business interest.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted (as counsel 'rightly points out') that the petitioners' entire business stands paralyzed on account of a unilateral decision taken by the authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶14

Key takeaways

The petition stands allowed; the account numbers mentioned in prayer 'a' are directed to be de-freezed by the concerned Bank.ratio¶15
The concerned Police authorities remain at liberty to take further action against the petitioners if they have any concrete material, but any such action must be brought to the notice of the petitioners enabling them to take appropriate recourse.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Civil) — Bank account freezing — Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.) allowed W.P.(C) 11326/2025 on 14.01.2026. Pursuant to the Court's earlier directions of 31.10.2025, the Delhi Police and Uttarakhand Police were to intimate the concerned Bank of the specific amount forming the subject matter of a criminal complaint; no intimation was ever received, and the Bank's counsel confirmed receipt of none, while the Delhi Police stated the freeze was effected at the instance of the Uttarakhand Police and no exact amount of dispute could be identified. Holding that continued freezing without any justifying basis was highly prejudicial to the petitioners' business interest, and accepting that the freeze was a unilateral decision imposed without hearing that had paralyzed their entire business, the Court directed the concerned Bank to de-freeze the accounts listed in prayer 'a', while reserving to the police the liberty to take further action upon concrete material, provided such action is notified to the petitioners to enable appropriate recourse.

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11326/2025 and CM APPL. 67514/2025

¶4

ROHIT KOHLI AND ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Shrey Chathly, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

GNCTD AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nitika Bhutani, Adv for GNCTD. Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Adv for R- 3 and 4. SI Shankar, PS Dwarka South.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 14.01.2026

¶9

Vide order dated 31.10.2025, the Court had issued certain directions. In compliance to the said directions, the Delhi Police and the Uttarakhand Police were directed to intimate the concerned Bank regarding the specific amount which is the subject matter of the criminal complaint.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and 4/Bank submits that he has not received any intimation from any of the Police Authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the Delhi Police contends that the necessary information was forwarded to the Uttarakhand Police and freezing has been taken at the instance of Uttarakhand Police, and, therefore, in absence of any intimation or information from Uttarakhand Police, he is unable to point out any exact amount of dispute.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/01/2026 at 13:30:12

¶13

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no reason as to why the freezing of the petitioners’ account should continue. There has to be some basis justifying the continuous freezing of the petitioners’ account. The same would obviously be highly prejudicial to the business interest of the petitioners.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners rightly points out that his entire business has been paralyzed on account of unilateral decision taken by the authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶15

Under these circumstances, the petition stands allowed. The account numbers mentioned in prayer ‘a’ are directed to be de-freezed by the concerned Bank.

¶16

The concerned Police authorities shall be at liberty to take further action, if they have any concrete material against the petitioners. However, such an action must be brought to the notice of the petitioners enabling him to take appropriate recourse.

¶17

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶18

JANUARY 14, 2026 aks/mj

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/01/2026 at 13:30:12

Rohit Kohli and Anr. v. Gnctd and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kohli and Anr. v. Gnctd and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Dr Anand Imaging and Neurological Research Centre Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikas Saksena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Mahavir Singh Retd

Chhotu Kumar Vs Indian Coast Guard & Ors.

Ramdhar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Bahl Vs Delhi Development Authority

Ajay Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Ministry of Urban Development & Anr.

Nathu Ram & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Dr Anand Imaging and Neurological Research Centre Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanchita Baweja & Anr. Vs Joint Secretary Chief Passport Officer & Anr.

Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Senior Secondary School Vs Delhi Minorities Commission & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sharma and Another Vs Union of India and Othrers

Praveen Singh Bhadoria Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department & Ors.

Kajal and Anrs. Vs the Controller (Cd) DM S/W District and Anr.