-1- W.P. No.36201 OF 2025 APHC010705792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 36201/2025 Between: 1. POLAKAM SARABHAIAH, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1601, BUTLER WAY, CHESTER SPRINGS, P.A-19425. PERMANENT R/O. SOPIRALA VILLAGE, CHINNAGANJAM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT-523153. (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523002. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINNAGANJAM POLICE STATION-523135. 4. THE MANAGER ICICI BANK, ONGOLE BRANCH-523001. 5. SEELAM RAMESH, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINNAGANJAM POLICE STATION-523135. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be -2- W.P. No.36201 OF 2025 pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned letter dt. 01.12.2025 issued by the 3ra respondent thereby directed the 4th respondent to freeze the Accounts of the Petitioner, which is illegal, irregular, contrary to the settled principles of law and violates the provisions of BNSS besides violation of Article 14, 21, 300 A of the Constitution of India, consequently directed the 4th respondent to de- freeze the petitioner NRI accounts vide account Nos.13130100133 7 and 131301075349 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 4th respondent to de- freeze the accounts of the petitioner vide account Nos.131301001337 and 131301075349 forthwith pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR The Court made the following: -3- W.P. No.36201 OF 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 36201/2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking necessary direction upon 3rd respondent who wrote a letter dt.01.12.2025 to freeze the bank account of petitioner in connection with C.R. No.77 of 2025 under section 318(4) and 351(1) of B.N.S. 2. During the course of hearing of instant matter, it appears that one Gedela Taviti Naidu has lodged a complaint with the 3rd respondent alleging inter alia about their business transaction of supply about prawn seed. It has been alleged in the complaint that there are transactions in the year 2022-2023 and it has been alleged that on 30.08.2025, the present petitioner allegedly denied to deliver the prawn seed worth Rs.18,15,000/-. On the basis of the complaint, the 3rd respondent has written a letter to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Main Branch, Ongole, to freeze the account of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by 3rd respondent is illegal, dishonest and motivated. No sanction of law is there to substantiate or support the action of 3rd respondent. Though initially, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits the action of the police authority is well covered under Section 106 of B.N.S.S., but subsequently a report is placed on record which reflects -4- W.P. No.36201 OF 2025 that the said account was defreezed by the letter of 3rd respondent dated 29.01.2026. 4. Considering the said letter, it appears that the cause of action in the instant writ petition is not exists right now. So far as the action taken by 3rd respondent is concerned, it appears to me that 3rd respondent acted in a high-handed manner in a case reported to have occurred during 2022-2023. Moreover, the fact that the dispute involved a business transaction relating to payment for the supply of prawn seed, which was reported in 2025, does not ipso facto proved that there existed no ingredients of theft of any property for which police can act under Section 106 of B.N.S.S. 5. In that aspect, the action of 3rd respondent is highly deprecated. Hence, this court has taken the cognizance of the fact that 3rd respondent shall not involve in such type of activities in future. 6. Taking note of fact, instant writ petition is disposed. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.07.05.2026 BV