Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Vs State Bank of India Represented through Its Zonal Manager

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 331 of 2022

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, aged about 55 years, son of Suresh Lal, resident of Court Road, Jamtara, Near Durga Mandir, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. & District-Jamtara, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Bank of India represented through its Zonal Manager, having its office at SBI Training Centre, Barmasiya, P.O. and P.S. & District-Deoghar.

¶6

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Deoghar, having its office at Sadhna Bhawan, Court Road, P.O., P.S. & District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Chief Manager-cum-Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Deoghar Branch, Sadhna Bhawan, Court Road, P.O., P.S. & District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶8

State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police (S.P.), Deoghar, P.O.+P.S.+District-Deoghar.

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv

¶12

16/05.03.2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the Respondent Bank for releasing/unfreeze/unlock the bank account of SBI Jamtara branch A/c No. 11048521846 and SBI FD A/c No. 31960822122 and 31759606202 and also to impose exemplary cost against the Respondent No.3 for the illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary act of freezing / unlocking / holding the saving Bank Account of the Petitioner.

¶15

1

¶16

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner is posted as a clerk in District Education Office, Deoghar and is having a saving Bank account being A/c No. 11048521846 in S.B.I., Jamtara Branch, which is also a salary account of the petitioner. On 04.12.2020, the respondent No.3 has froze/locked the aforementioned Bank Account. The petitioner immediately made an application on 11.08.2021 to the concerned bank about the illegal and arbitrary freezing of the aforesaid bank account as well as fixed deposit account by the Respondent No.3.

¶17

Thereafter, Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 16.08.2021 replied that due to non-recovery of the amount in defalcation case and due to the order of the Superior Officers and the fact that the enquiry of the Bank has not been completed, the aforesaid act has been done.

¶18

Pursuant thereto; on 19.08.2021 itself, the petitioner served a legal notice to the concerned Respondent No.3 in which he categorically mentioned each and every fact with respect to illegal holding of the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner and demanded for the release of the aforesaid bank account.

¶19

The fact further reveals that the Petitioner who is also having a loan account being Loan A/C No. 38076426360 which is connected to the Saving Bank Account became N.P.A. due to the hold in his aforesaid account despite of the

¶20

2

¶21

sufficient available fund in this account. The concerned respondent Bank served a legal Demand Notice to the petitioner despite of availability of fund in the account.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Bank Account No. 11048521846 has been frozen by the Respondent No.5 in a highly illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submits that the petitioner has been suffering a serious financial hardship due to the lock of his Bank account and therefore, he made an application to release his bank account which is also his salary account in which his salary is transferred and due to hold of this account his aforesaid Loan Account became N.P.A. despite having sufficient fund in the account. He lastly submits that the concerned Respondent No.3 in an illegal and arbitrary manner without having any authority under the law froze/held/locked the petitioner’s bank account.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that an FIR has been lodged in Deoghar Town Police Station having case No. 276/2020. He further submits that on receipt of the above information of a banking fraud and its alleged suspects (petitioner being one of them) and further on seeing suspicious transaction (having cash transaction from unknown sources) in the account of the petitioner, the bank froze his Saving Account No. 11048521846 maintained with SBI Jamtara Main Branch along with his FD Account No. 3

¶24

31759606202 and 31960822122 maintained with SBI combined Building, Jamtara Branch.

¶25

He further submits that joint account of the petitioner with Mrs. Kunchan Srivastava having Account No. 11476026673 is free from any hold or lien. He further submits that as a financial organization it is the prime objective of the bank to debar any further transaction in any account which is reported for any suspicious activity/fraud and as a precautionary measure the bank has put hold in the account of the petitioner so that transactions are stopped from being routed further.

¶26

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that one fraud of Rs. 23,40,000/- (Twenty three lakhs forty thousands) was reported by Mrs. Madhuri Kumari, who was posted as District Education Officer, Deoghar in which she informed that two employees of DEO office have committed fraud by using forged signatures in multiple cheques pertaining to Account No. 11240650191 maintained with Deoghar Main Branch in the name of “District Education Officer” and the Petitioner is one of the accused as per the FIR lodged by DEO, Deoghar.

¶27

It further transpires that an FIR has been lodged in Deoghar Town Police Station having case No. 276 of 2020. It also appears from records that the bank account of the

¶28

4

¶29

petitioner was neither frozen by the order/direction of any competent criminal/civil court nor by the application of the police investigating officer nor by the concerned District Education Office; rather the bank account of the petitioner was frozen by the order of respondent no. 3.

¶30

7. During course of hearing, it has been informed by the counsel for the Bank that the Petitioner had deposited Rs. 7.5 lakhs which is the same amount which has been alleged to have been embezzled by the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid fact that since the petitioner has deposited Rs. 7.5 lakhs which is the same amount which has been alleged to have been defalcated by the petitioner for which the bank account was seized; this court feels no hesitation in directing the Respondent Bank to de-freeze the account of the petitioner forthwith. Ordered accordingly.

¶31

8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.

¶32

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶33

Amardeep/

¶34

5

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava v. State Bank of India Represented through Its Zonal Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava v. State Bank of India Represented through Its Zonal Manager

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

Ms Minerals And Minerals Limited Through Its Agent Mines Shri Bijesh Kumar Jha Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Mr Sunil Kumar Barnwal Secretary Deptt of Industries Mines and Geology and Ors.

Ramji Tiwari Vs the Divisional Commercial Manager, the South Eastern Railway Hatia

Raj Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand