Disposed¶18

Deepak Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary,Government of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Jul 2026WPC/4980/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank account freeze/lien; Punjab National Bank Deoghar Branch; lien of Rs.3,04,850/- over prima facie fraudulent transaction proceeds credited to customer's account; entire account not frozen, customer allowed to operate account; bank directed to keep suspect amount on hold without disbursing and to furnish details of fraudulent credit; Deepak Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Punjab National Bank; Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 21 July 2026; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to operate his bank account; bank to retain Rs.3,04,850/- on hold without disbursing it to anyone and to furnish details of the amount fraudulently credited, enabling the petitioner to take appropriate steps. ¶18

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary,Government of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Punjab National Bank erred in placing/retaining a lien (hold) of Rs.3,04,850/- over amounts credited to the petitioner's account, being prima facie the proceeds of a fraudulent transaction, and whether the petitioner's account could continue to be operated.

¶13

Court's answer

No error was committed by the bank in keeping the amount of Rs.3,04,850/- on hold, the said sum being prima facie the proceeds of some fraudulent transaction credited to the petitioner's account.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's entire account has not been frozen, the petitioner will be allowed to operate the aforesaid account, but the bank is directed to keep the amount of Rs.3,04,850/- on hold.

¶14

Key takeaways

The bank is directed to keep the sum of Rs.3,04,850/- on hold without disbursing it to anyone.ratio¶17
The bank is further directed to furnish the details of the amount which, according to it, has been fraudulently credited in the petitioner's account, so that the petitioner can take appropriate steps.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Ananda Sen, J.) - W.P.(C) No. 4980 of 2026, decided 21st July, 2026: Petitioner (Deepak Kumar Singh) moved against the State of Jharkhand and Punjab National Bank (Regional Manager, Patna, and Branch Manager, Deoghar Branch) over the treatment of his bank account. On instructions sought pursuant to the Court's earlier direction, the bank's counsel submitted that the petitioner's entire account had not been frozen; only a lien of Rs.3,04,850/- had been created over funds prima facie found to be the proceeds of a fraudulent transaction credited to the account, and the petitioner could continue to operate the accounts. Finding no error by the bank in retaining the suspect sum, the Court held that the petitioner would be allowed to operate the account, directed the bank to keep Rs.3,04,850/- on hold without disbursing it to anyone, and further directed the bank to furnish details of the amount it considered fraudulently credited so that the petitioner could take appropriate steps. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

2026:JHHC:21429

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4980 of 2026

¶3

Deepak Kumar Singh, son of Sagar Singh, Resident of Laxmi Niwas, Gali No.5, Kamal Kothi, Ward No.14 Purandaha, PO & PS-Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶6

Punjab National Bank, through its Regional Manager, having its office at Jayaprakash Path, Sri Krishna Puri, PO & PSKrinshnapuri, Dist-Patna, Bihar.

¶7

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Deoghar Branch, PO & PS-Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar. … … Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶9

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahato, AC to AG Dr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate ------

¶10

03/ 21^st July, 2026

¶11

1. Heard the parties.

¶12

2. On the last date, the learned counsel for the bank was directed to seek instructions.

¶13

3. Today, he sought instructions from his client and submits that the entire account of the petitioner has not been freezed. He submits that a lien has been created to the tune of Rs.3,04,850/- only as the said amount was prima-facie found to be fraudulent transaction, which has been credited in the account of this petitioner. He submits that till date, the petitioner is able to operate the bank accounts. The written information which the bank counsel has received from his client, is kept on record.

¶14

4. Considering the aforesaid fact that amount of Rs.3,04,850/- which has been credited in the account of the petitioner is prima-facie the proceeds of some fraudulent transaction, I find no error committed by the bank in keeping the aforesaid amount on hold. Since the entire bank account of the petitioner has not been freezed, the petitioner will be allowed to operate the aforesaid account but the bank is directed to keep the

¶15

Page | 1

¶16

2026:JHHC:21429

¶17

amount of Rs.3,04,850/- on hold without disbursing it to anyone. 5. The bank is directed to furnish the details of the amount which according to them has been fraudulently credited in the account of the petitioner, so that petitioner can take appropriate steps.

¶18

6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶19

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶20

21^st July, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 22.07.2026

¶21

Page | 2

Deepak Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary,Government of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary,Government of Jharkhand

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

A. Laxmi Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, through Its Principal Namely Anup Lakra Vs State of Jharkhand

Kanhai Prasad Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rupa Kumari Soni Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue

Nand Kishore Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand