Disposed¶52

Mashkoor Alam MD Salahuddin v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025WP/27724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank account freeze/de-freeze; lien amount; HDFC Bank Vadodara; Karnataka Police Circular dated 20.07.2024; Standing Order No.1041 dated 18.03.2025; suspected transaction; Article 226; GM-RES; South CEN Police Station Bangalore; Bankers Books Evidence Act-1891; amicus curiae; account holder information on lien; writ of mandamus against bank freezing.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the second respondent-Bank to communicate the amount marked for lien by the authorities and to permit the petitioner to operate the account beyond the lien amount; liberty to file a certified copy of the order within two weeks, whereupon the Bank to inform the lien amount and permit operation forthwith. ¶52

Mashkoor Alam MD Salahuddin Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent-Bank should be directed to de-freeze the petitioner's account and permit its operation, with any freeze/lien limited to the amount marked for lien by the police authorities. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the petitioner's rights, directing the second respondent-Bank to communicate to the petitioner the amount marked for lien as part of the investigation and to permit him to operate the account beyond the amount marked for lien.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order within two [2] weeks from receipt of a copy; thereafter the second respondent-Bank shall inform the amount marked for lien and permit the petitioner to operate the account beyond such amount forthwith.

¶56

Key takeaways

If the authorities, for reasons, have not marked any amount to be on lien, the petitioner must avail his remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Petitioner's account with HDFC Bank, Vadodara frozen following a communication from the Police Department — State indicated that Circular dated 20.07.2024 and Standing Order No.1041 dated 18.03.2025 call upon Police Investigation Authorities not to direct freezing of bank accounts without justifiable reasons and, if frozen, only to the extent of the suspected transaction (lien amount) — Held: petition disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's rights, directing the Bank to communicate the amount marked for lien as part of investigation and to permit the petitioner to operate the account beyond that amount; liberty to file a certified copy of the order within two [2] weeks, whereupon the Bank to inform the lien amount and permit operation beyond it forthwith; if no amount stands marked for lien, the petitioner to avail his remedy in accordance with law. (Kannada text of the Circular, quoting the Bankers Books Evidence Act-1891, reproduced in the order.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 27724 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MASHKOOR ALAM MD SALAHUDDIN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O MD SALAHUDDIN, NO.A30, HUSAINI PARK, VASNA ROAD, NEAR FAIZ SCHOOL, TANDALJA, VADODARA, GUJARAT-390012.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMESH YANKOB., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHANTHALADEVI B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SOUTH CEN PS, BANGALORE-560070 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE BANK MANAGER, HDFC BANK VADODARA, GUJARAT-390020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN A/W SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR A/W SRI. H.V. BHANUPRAKASH AMICUS CURIAE SRI. V SHIVAREDDY ., AGA R1)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-1 AND R2 TO FORTHWITH DEFREEZE THE PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNT WHILE PERMITTING LIEN TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF THE BALANCE SUM OF 17,775/- ONLY SINCE 16725 HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOVERED BY R-1 DTED AT BANGALORE ON THIS 8^TH DAY OF THE SEP 2025.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner seeks directions to the second respondent-bank to de-freeze his account and to permit him to operate his bank account. This Court has heard not just Sri Ramesh Yankob, the learned counsel appearing for Smt. Shanthaladevi B R, the learned counsel on record for the petitioner but also the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and Sri H.V. Bhanu Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar and Sri Shanthi Bhushan H, the learned amici curiae , who are assisting this Court in disposal of similar matters.

¶30

The petitioner's grievance is because the second respondent-Bank has frozen his account. The Bank has frozen his account because of the communication from the Police Department as mentioned in this petition. Sri Ramesh Yankob submits, with the advantage of the arguments that

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

have been advanced on the larger question on whether the account holders must receive due information about the amounts marked for lien on receipt of complaints, that the grievance of this petitioner would be addressed if this Court disposes of the petition with directions to the Bank to limit freezing to the amount marked for lien by the concerned Police and permit him to operate the account beyond the amount marked for lien.

¶35

Sri H.V. Bhanu Prakash and Sri Shanthi

¶36

Bhushan H are categorical that instructions have been issued to all the Banks to limit the de-freezing to the amounts marked for lien and not restrict the account holders from operating the accounts beyond the amounts marked for lien. In fact, Sri H.V. Bhanu Prakash invites this Court's attention to the Circular dated 20.07.2024 and the Standing Order No.1041 dated 18.03.2025 to emphasize that the Police Investigation Authorities within the State have been

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

called upon not to issue any directions to freeze the bank accounts without justifiable reasons and if an account has to be frozen, it should only be to the extent of the suspected transaction. The relevant part of the Circular reads as under:

¶40

"�ಾವ��ೇ ತ��ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಆ�ೋ�ತವ��ಅಥ�ಾ ಇತ�ೆ �ಾವ��ೇ ವ��ಗಳ ಅಥ�ಾ ಸಂ�ೆ�ಗಳ �ಾ�ಂ �ಾ!ೆಗಳ"# ತ��ೆ$ೆ ಸಂಬಂ%&ದ (ತ� ಜ* ಆ+ದ,"# ಅಥ�ಾ ಇತರ ಸಂದಭ/ಗಳ"# ಈ 1ೆಳ+ನ ಕ4ಮಗಳನು7 ಅನುಸ8ಸತಕ9ದು, .

¶41

1) (ದಲ;ೆಯ�ಾ+ಸ1ಾರಣ>ಲ#�ೆ �ಾವ��ೇ�ಾ�ಂ �ಾ!ೆಗಳನು7 ?4ೕ@ Aಾಡತಕ9ದ,ಲ# . ಒಂದು �ೇDೆ ?4ೕ@ Aಾಡುವ ಸಂದಭ/ ಬಂದ"# ಸಂಶ�ಾಸFದ (ತ� (Lien Amount) ವನು7 Aಾತ4 ?4ೕ@ Aಾಡತಕ9ದು, . ಸಂಪHಣ/ �ಾ�ಂ �ಾ!ೆಯನು7 ?4ೕ@ Aಾಡತಕ9ದ,ಲ# .

¶42

2) ಒಂದು �ೇDೆ ಸಂಪHಣ/ �ಾ!ೆಯನು7 ?4ೕ@Aಾಡ�ೇ1ಾದ"#ಸೂಕ� ಸಮIಾJK ಮತು� ಸ1ಾರಣಗDೆLಂM$ೆ ತಮ$ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟO ಅಪರ P"ೕQ ಆಯುಕ�ರು ರವ8ಂದ "Rತ ಅನುಮS ಪTೆದು ?4ೕ@Aಾಡುವ�ದು .

¶43

3) �ಾವ��ೇ �ಾ�ಂ ;ೊಂM$ೆ ಪತ4 ವ�ವUಾರAಾV�ಾಗ Bankers Books Evidence Act-1891 ನ"# �ೕVರುವ ಸೂಚ;ೆಗಳನು7 ಕTಾXಯ�ಾ+Yಾಲ;ೆ Aಾಡತಕ9ದು, .

¶44

1. �ಾವ��ೇ �ಾ�ಂ �ಾ!ೆಗಳನು7 ಮತು� �ಾ!ೆಗಳ Lien Amount ಗಳನು7 ?4ೕ@AಾVದ"# . ಕೂಡ]ೆ ಈAಾ^Sಯನು7 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟO ;ಾ��ಾಲಯ1ೆ9 ಕTಾXಯ�ಾ+ಸ"#ಸತಕ9ದು, .

¶45

5) ಈ ಸು!ೊ�ೕ]ೆಯನು7 _ೕ8 ವS/ಸುವ ತ��ಾ%1ಾ8ಗಳ >ರುದ` ಸUಾಯಕ P"ೕQ ಆಯುಕ�ರು / ಉಪ P"ೕQ ಆಯುಕ�ರುಗಳb c&�ನಕ4ಮ1ಾ9+ವರMಸ"#ಸತಕ9ದು, ."

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In the light of this, the petitioner seeks disposal of the petition with a direction to the second respondentBank to limit the freezing to the amount marked for lien and this Court is of the view that the petition, without prejudice to the petitioner's rights, otherwise must be disposed of directing the second respondentBank to communicate the amount marked for lien as part of investigation and permit the petitioner to operate the account otherwise. As such, the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

[i] The petition is disposed of directing the

¶52

second respondent - Bank to communicate to the petitioner the amount that is marked for lien by the authorities and also permit him to operate the account beyond the amount marked for lien.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:46779 WP No. 27724 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

[ii] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent-Bank shall inform the amount marked for lien and permit the petitioner to operate the account beyond such amount forthwith.

¶57

[iii] It is needless to observe that if the authorities for reasons have not marked the amount to be on lien, the petitioner must avail his remedy in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

Mashkoor Alam MD Salahuddin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mashkoor Alam MD Salahuddin v. the State of Karnataka

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

Karnataka Industrial Areas Vs Union of India

Sanam Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Limited Vs the National Co-Operative Bank Limited

Sri Noor Ul Haseeb Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Mr. Bilal Mohammed Noushad Vs the State of Kerala

Sri. B S Nesara Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike