Disposed¶34

Manoj Kumar v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC1 Jul 2026WP Crl.(MD)/3244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank account freeze / de-freeze; whole-account freezing unjustified where alleged fraudulent amount is quantified; lien-marking remedy limited to quantified sum; Article 226 writ of mandamus; Bank of Baroda, Ramanathapuram; petitioner not an accused; account frozen due to illegal transactions; representation dated 19.11.2025; recall of lien before Jurisdictional Magistrate; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.Crl.(MD); applied W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

First respondent bank directed to mark a lien only for the quantified sum and permit the petitioner to operate account No.70100100006387 forthwith; petitioner at liberty to move the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien marked over the quantified amount. Notice to the second respondent dispensed with. ¶34

Manoj Kumar Vs The Branch Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen in its entirety on the ground of alleged illegal transactions, should be de-frozen by marking a lien limited to the quantified sum and permitting operation of the account.

¶32

Court's answer

Where the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, freezing of the whole bank account would not be justified.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent/Bank shall mark a lien only for the quantified sum and shall permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith.

¶35

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien marked over the quantified amount.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench), Single Judge (L. Victoria Gowri, J.), W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3244 of 2026, decided 01.07.2026. Account holder Manoj Kumar, not an accused in any criminal case, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ramanathapuram, to de-freeze his account No.70100100006387, frozen reportedly due to 'illegal transactions' and despite his unheeded representation dated 19.11.2025. The Court found on perusal of records that the account stood frozen and inoperable, and held that where the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, freezing of the whole account would not be justified, applying the approach of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024. The petition was disposed of with directions that the Bank mark a lien only for the quantified sum and permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith, leaving the petitioner at liberty to move the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate for recall of the lien; notice to the second respondent (Inspector of Police, Akole Police Station, Maharashtra) was dispensed with.

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3244 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3244 of 2026

Manoj Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Akole Police Station, Ahaliya Nagar, Maharastra. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to de- freeze the Petitioner's bank account No.70100100006387 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 19.11.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravikumar (R1)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1^st respondent to

¶16

de-freeze the petitioner's bank account No.70100100006387 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 19.11.2025.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3244 of 2026

¶20

The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows:

¶21

(a) The petitioner is holding an account bearing A/c No.

¶22

70100100006387 at the first respondent bank.

¶23

(b) The petitioner came to know that his account had been frozen.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal case; the act of the first respondent freezing the entire account is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner; that the first respondent was obliged to obey the directions, the first respondent ought to have informed the petitioner about the action taken thereon; and that having failed to do so, it has breached the contract with the petitioner.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit

¶26

that the account of the petitioner was frozen due to some illegal transactions.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3244 of 2026

¶31

On perusal of the records, the fact is that the account has been frozen and the petitioner is unable to operate the account.

¶32

It is seen that in similar circumstances, this Court had observed that when the alleged fraudulent amount is quantified, the freezing of the whole account would not be justified. Similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.15684 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024, wherein, it was held that:

¶33

“3. The respondent is permitted to retain the aforesaid sum by marking lien on the petitioner's account. Subject to such marking of lien, the petitioner is permitted to operate their bank account. The freezing effected on the petitioner's bank account is lifted to the aforesaid extent. T\his writ petition stands allowed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶34