Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sathiyaraj Vs Karur Vysya Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Sathiyaraj Vs Karur Vysya BankSathiyaraj v. Karur Vysya Bank

Disposed¶32

Sathiyaraj v. Karur Vysya Bank

Bank account freeze – cyber crime investigation

Madras HC21 Jul 2026WP Crl./1730/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sathiyaraj Vs. Karur Vysya Bank & Others; WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026; Madras High Court; Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; decision 21-07-2026; writ of mandamus under Article 226; defreeze of bank account No.121315000256087 frozen on Cyberabad and Gujarat cyber crime police instructions; alleged defacto complainant transfers of Rs.20,000/- each (total Rs.40,000/-); direction to mark lien of Rs.40,000/- and allow operation of balance; compliance with investigating agencies' further instructions; petition disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to mark a lien of Rs.40,000/- over the petitioner's account No.121315000256087 and permit operation of the remaining balance, subject to compliance with further instructions of the concerned investigating agencies in accordance with law; no costs. ¶32

Why is it important?

The first respondent bank is directed to mark a lien over the petitioner's bank account to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account in respect of the remaining amount. ¶30

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the first respondent to mark a lien of Rs.40,000/- over the petitioner's account No.121315000256087 and permit operation of the remaining balance, subject to compliance with further instructions of the concerned investigating agencies in accordance with law; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's bank account bearing No.121315000256087, maintained with the first respondent and frozen on the instructions of the third and fourth respondents, should be defrozen.

Court's answer

The first respondent bank is directed to mark a lien over the petitioner's bank account to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account in respect of the remaining amount.

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent is to act in accordance with any further instructions issued by the concerned investigating agencies in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bank account freeze — cyber crime investigation — partial defreeze via lien: The petitioner's account No.121315000256087 with Karur Vysya Bank, T.Nagar Branch, was frozen on instructions of the Cyberabad and Gujarat State cyber crime police on the allegation that Rs.20,000/- each belonging to a defacto complainant had been transferred into the account, totalling Rs.40,000/- across two investigating agencies. Disposing of the Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.) directed the bank to mark a lien over the account to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the remaining amount, with the bank to act in accordance with any further instructions of the concerned investigating agencies in accordance with law. No costs. (Order dated 21-07-2026)

A

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

Sathiyaraj

..Petitioner

Vs

Karur Vysya Bank The Branch Manager, T.Nagar Branch, 108, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai -17.

The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Commissioner Office Campus, Vepery, Chennai - 600007.

The Inspector of Police, IO Cyber Crime, Cyberabad, Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana.

The Inspector of Police State Cyber Crime Cell, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, 7^th Floor, Karmyogi Bhavan, Sector-10-A, Block No.-2, Gandhinagar - 382018.

..Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other Writ or order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to Defreeze the Bank Account of the petitioner bearing No.121315000256087 maintained with

Page1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

the 1^st Respondent and pass such further or other orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstance of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.K.Vasuki For Respondents: Mr.K.Rajesh for R1

Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to defreeze the petitioner’s bank account bearing Account No.121315000256087 maintained with the first respondent.

2 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the second respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

3 . It is the case of the petitioner that he is maintaining a bank account bearing Account No.121315000256087 with the first respondent. While being so, the first respondent had frozen the petitioner’s bank account based on the instructions received from the third and fourth respondents herein, on the

Page2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

allegation that a sum of Rs.20,000/- each, belonging to the defacto complainant, was transferred to the petitioner’s account. Thus, the total disputed amount is Rs.40,000/-, pertaining to two different investigating agencies, viz., the third and fourth respondents herein.

4 . In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to mark a lien over the petitioner’s bank account to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account in respect of the remaining amount. It is made clear that the first respondent is directed to act in accordance with any further instructions issued by the concerned investigating agencies in accordance with law.

5 . With the above direction, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stands

disposed of. No costs.

21-07-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

LPP

__________ Page3 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Commissioner Office Campus, Vepery, Chennai - 600007.

2.The Inspector of Police, IO Cyber Crime, Cyberabad, Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3.The Inspector of Police, State Cyber Crime Cell, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, 7^th Floor, Karmyogi Bhavan, Sector-10-A, Block No.-2, Gandhinagar – 382018. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

__________ Page4 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.

LPP

WP Crl. No. 1730 of 2026

21-07-2026

__________ Page5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner's bank account bearing No.121315000256087, maintained with the first respondent and frozen on the instructions of the third and fourth respondents, should be defrozen.¶23
The court held
The first respondent bank is directed to mark a lien over the petitioner's bank account to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account in respect of the remaining amount.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶15

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Freezing of the petitioner's bank account No.121315000256087 by the first respondent on instructions received from the third and fourth respondents (Cyberabad and Gujarat State cyber crime police).¶25
Karur Vysya Bank, T.Nagar Branch (first respondent), acting on instructions of the third and fourth respondents
Prior proceeding
Allegation that a sum of Rs.20,000/- each, belonging to the defacto complainant, was transferred to the petitioner's account; total disputed amount of Rs.40,000/- pertains to two different investigating agencies, viz., the third and fourth respondents.¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sathiyaraj¶7
Mr.P.K.Vasuki
respondent
Karur Vysya Bank (Branch Manager, T.Nagar Branch, 108, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai -17)¶10
Mr.K.Rajesh
respondent
The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Commissioner Office Campus, Vepery, Chennai - 600007¶11
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
respondent
The Inspector of Police, IO Cyber Crime, Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana¶12
respondent
The Inspector of Police, State Cyber Crime Cell, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar¶13

Coram

AI extract

G.K. Ilanthiraiyanauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 21 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 17 Jul 2026
Case no.: WP Crl./1730/2026
CNR: HCMA011623522026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: G.k. Ilanthiraiyan
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: WP Crl.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.k. Ilanthiraiyan

C.Alagappan Vs The State Rep. by The Deputy Commissioner of Police
20 Jul 2026
Ashwin Vs The Superintendent of police
20 Jul 2026
Mr.D.Manish Kothari Vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
20 Jul 2026
M.Raghul Vs The Bureau of Immigration
21 Jul 2026
N.P.Manikandan Vs State Rep by
21 Jul 2026
Ayyappan Vs The Secretary to Government
21 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Sathiyaraj v. Karur Vysya Bank, WP Crl./1730/2026 (MAD), decided on 21 July 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Freezing of the petitioner's bank account No.121315000256087 by the first respondent on instructions received from the third and fourth respondents (Cyberabad and Gujarat State cyber crime police).Karur Vysya Bank, T.Nagar Branch (first respondent), acting on instructions of the third and fourth respondents
Allegation that a sum of Rs.20,000/- each, belonging to the defacto complainant, was transferred to the petitioner's account; total disputed amount of Rs.40,000/- pertains to two different investigating agencies, viz., the third and fourth respondents.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Parties & counsel