Paras Aneja Vs State of Karnataka

SON OF LATE UP BHIMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.767, 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560085 E-MAIL [email protected] MOB 9740690222.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1; V/O/D. 01.04.2026 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS D/W)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶24

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO

¶25

DEFREEZE AND REMOVE THE LIEN OF RS. 5,145/- MARKED BY THE R-1 POLICE ON THE PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNT BARING ACCOUNT NO. 10102228245 MAINTAINED WITH R-2 BANK.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17853 WP No. 9868 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2/Bank to defreeze the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.10102228245 and to remove the lien of Rs.5,145/- marked on the said account pursuant to the communication issued by respondent No.1/Investigating Agency.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/Investigating Agency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶34

This Court has carefully perused the material placed on record, more particularly Annexure-B, which is the communication issued by respondent No.2/Bank to the petitioner. A perusal of the same indicates that a lien to the extent of Rs.5,145/- has been marked on the

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17853 WP No. 9868 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

petitioner’s account pursuant to a transaction-related complaint bearing No.31612250165783 registered on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP). It is evident that respondent No.2/Bank has acted on the basis of instructions received from respondent No.1/Investigating Agency.

¶38

It is no doubt true that the Investigating Agency, in exercise of its powers under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other enabling provisions governing investigation of cyber offences, is empowered to take appropriate steps to preserve suspected proceeds of crime and to ensure that such amounts remain available during the course of investigation. However, such powers are required to be exercised in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

¶39

In the present case, the Investigating Agency

¶40

has specifically quantified the amount suspected to be involved in the alleged transaction as Rs.5,145/- and has

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17853 WP No. 9868 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

accordingly directed the Bank to mark a lien to that extent. However, the action of respondent No.2/Bank in freezing the entire account of the petitioner, instead of restricting the lien to the specified amount, has the effect of completely disabling the petitioner from operating his account. Such an action, in the considered view of this Court, is excessive and disproportionate, particularly when the amount in question is clearly identified and limited.

¶44

The freezing of the entire bank account, when the lien amount is specifically determined, results in an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s right to access and operate his own funds beyond the disputed amount. The Bank, while complying with the directions of the Investigating Agency, ought to have confined its action strictly to the extent of the lien amount communicated.

¶45

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action of respondent No.2/Bank in freezing the petitioner’s entire account warrants

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17853 WP No. 9868 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

interference and appropriate directions are required to be issued to balance the interest of the investigation and the rights of the petitioner.

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶51

(ii) The action of respondent No.2/Bank in freezing the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.10102228245, beyond the extent of the lien amount, is hereby declared as illegal and unsustainable.

¶52

(iii) Respondent No.2/Bank is directed to restrict the lien on the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.10102228245 only to the extent of Rs.5,145/-, as communicated by respondent No.1/Investigating Agency.

¶53

(iv) Respondent No.2/Bank shall forthwith defreeze the petitioner’s bank account, permitting the petitioner to freely operate

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:17853 WP No. 9868 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the account in respect of the amount exceeding Rs.5,145/-, without any further restrictions.

¶58

(v) The lien of Rs.5,145/- shall continue to remain in force, subject to further orders that may be passed by the competent authority or Court during the course of investigation.

¶59

(vi) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, and shall appear before the Investigating Officer and furnish such documents, information, or clarification as may be required, upon receipt of notice or summons.

¶60

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶61

AMM

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Paras Aneja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Aneja v. 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

Mr. Awab Adil Ahmed Mohamed @ Awab Vs Union of India

Chikmagalore District High School Vs Under Secretary to the Government- 3

Mr. Abdul Khader Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.B.N Monappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Thippaiah H @ Thipeswamy

Jayaprakash v Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka