Indrajeet Singh v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8978/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Account freeze; blanket freeze; de-freeze; lien; UPI transaction; salary account; commercial death; natural justice; proportionality; arbitrariness; application of mind; Article 226; Article 19(1)(g); Article 21; Constitution of India; Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited v. Union of India W.P.(C) 4198/2025; State Bank of India Darya Ganj; Axis Bank Darya Ganj; Rs. 2963.74; Rs. 20,000; Indrajeet Singh v. State Bank of India; Delhi High Court; Jasmeet Singh J.

What did the court decide?

Accounts of the petitioner with respondent No.1/SBI and respondent No. 2/Axis Bank directed to be de-freezed and activated forthwith, except for a lien on Rs. 2963.74/-; learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition and the same was disposed of. ¶¶32

Indrajeet Singh Vs State Bank of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned blanket freeze imposed on all of the petitioner's accounts, without due application of mind and for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amount, was in violation of the principles of natural justice, disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power striking at the petitioner's fundamental rights, and therefore liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

Freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences and creating hardships; the freezing of the petitioner's salary account might result in his commercial death, and the respondent No. 1 bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without any application of mind.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The impugned action of account freezing was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power striking a blow at the petitioner's fundamental rights; it was without due application of mind, an indiscriminate blanket freeze having been imposed on all the petitioner's accounts for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amount, and therefore deserved to be set aside. (In reaching this view the Court relied on the coordinate bench's observations in Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4198/2025.)

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The petition was allowed and the Court directed that the accounts of the petitioner maintained with respondent No.1/SBI and respondent No. 2/Axis Bank be de-freezed and activated forthwith, except for a lien on an amount of Rs. 2963.74/-.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.; Order dated 08.07.2026 in W.P.(C) 8978/2026): A Constable's SBI salary-cum-savings account and Axis Bank savings account were frozen after a Rs. 20,000/- UPI loan advanced to one Mr. Amra Ram was repaid into his account; an Axis Bank email dated 10.02.2026 showed a freeze for a disputed amount of Rs. 2963.74/-. Held: freezing an account entails serious consequences and, touching the salary account, might result in the petitioner's commercial death; the bank cannot take such harsh measures without application of mind. The indiscriminate blanket freeze of all the petitioner's accounts for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amount was without due application of mind, in clear violation of natural justice, disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power striking at fundamental rights, and was set aside. Reliance placed on a coordinate bench's observations (para 19, Order dated 16.01.2026) in Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4198/2025, that blanket freezes on account holders who are neither accused nor suspect are manifestly arbitrary and violate Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Both accounts directed to be de-freezed and activated except for a lien of Rs. 2963.74/-; petition disposed of as not pressed.

¶1

$~131

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8978/2026 & CM APPL. 42062/2026

¶4

INDRAJEET SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Mohmmad Mubeen, Adv. versus

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh K Rout, SC for R-1/SBI Mr. Rahul Mourya, GP for R-3/UOI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 08.07.2026

¶10

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶11

“a) A writ of certiorari calling and perusing the case's records;

¶12

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records and quashing the freeze instructions/liens issued by Respondent Nos. 3 executed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the Petitioner’s savings accounts.

¶13

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, thereby directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (both banks) to forthwith defreeze the Petitioner’s aforesaid bank accounts and restore full operational access

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. 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 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25

¶15

thereto…”

¶16

¶17

For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice.

¶18

Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel accepts advance notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1/ SBI.

¶19

The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a Constable in C Company of 8^th Battalion, RAC (IR) Ghazipur Delhi (110096). He maintained a savings-cum-salary account No. 37564378793 with the respondent No. 1/SBI Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi. The petitioner also maintained another savings account being 915010022022888 with Axis Bank, Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi.

¶20

One Mr. Amra Ram asked the petitioner to lend him Rs. 20,000/- and since Mr. Amra Ram was known to the petitioner, the petitioner advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000/- through UPI. In January, 2026, Mr. Amra Ram returned the money to the account of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the accounts of the petitioner has been frozen.

¶21

Hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶22

Mr. Mubeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to an email dated 10.02.2026, which reads as under:

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25

¶25

A perusal of the above shows that the account of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No. 2/Axis Bank, Darya Ganj Branch has been freezed for a disputed amount of Rs. 2963.74/-.

¶26

The freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for the petitioner in the present case as the salary account of the petitioner has been freezed and the same might result in commercial death of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without any application of mind.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25

¶29

Additionally, a coordinate bench of this Court has made categorical observations in paragraph No. 19 of its Order dated 16.01.2026 titled as Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4198/2025, that actions of blanket freeze in cases where the account holder is neither an accused nor a suspect, are manifestly arbitrary and in clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

For the said reasons, I am of the view that the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is not only in clear violation of the principles of natural justice but also disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The impugned action is without due application of mind as an indiscriminate blanket freeze has been imposed on all the accounts of the petitioner for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amount. Therefore, the action deserves to be set aside.

¶31

Consequently, the petition is allowed and it is hereby directed that the accounts of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No.1/SBI and the respondent No. 2/Axis Bank shall be de-freezed and activated except for a lien on an amount of Rs. 2963.74/-, forthwith.

¶32

In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition and the same is disposed of.

¶33

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶34

JULY 8, 2026/sp

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25

Indrajeet Singh v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Singh v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gian Chand & Ors.

Darshan Lal & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Master Sorabh Rathor through His Guardian Smt Savitri Vs North Delhi Public School and Ors.

Sudhir Rana Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parth Shokeen (Proprietor Parth Enterprises) Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 62 Zone 5 & Ors.

Rajendra Thakur & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Sahil Arsh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Satpal Garg Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shri Laxmi Narain Bansal Vs Delhi Developivient Authory & Anr.

Aditya Institute of Technology through Its Founder-Cum-Chairman Shri Devendra Gupta Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Saraswati Sikshan Sansthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Baba Ganganath Ba.B.Ed/ B.Sc.B.Ed College Vs National Council for Teacher Education