1 APHC010327832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17014/2025 Between: M/S SAHYOG TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,, OFFICE AT KD-301, PITAMPURA, DELHI-110 088, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA, S/O. S.R.SHARMA, R/O C- 7/217, KESHAV PURAM, DELHI. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHERLA RURAL POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE KARURVYSYA BANK, VAISHALIPITAMPURA BRANCH, PITAMPURA NO. 15, MAIN ROAD, VAISHALI, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, VAISHALIPITAMPURA BRANCH, PITAMPURA NO.15, MAIN ROAD, VAISHALI, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. KARURVYSYA BANK 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KARURVYSYA BANK, VAISHALIPITAMPURA BRANCH, PITAMPURA NO. 15, MAIN ROAD, VAISHALI, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondents in freezing Petitioners bank account vide bearing No.4112135000005781 as perse illegal, manifestly arbitrary, de/7ors jurisdiction and opposed to the very spirit and nature of Articles 14, 19(I)(9) and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to the BNSS Act and RBI guidelines and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and to consequently direct the Respondents to enable the Petitioner to operate the said bank account by de-freezing the same.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner and its employees are no way connected with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that, though the Petitioner is not an Accused in the said crime, its bank account was freezed unnecessarily due to which, the Petitioner is unable to carry out its day-to-day activities. Hence, prayed to defreeze the account by keeping a lien over the disputed sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Perusal of the material on record does not disclose any case that has been registered against the Petitioner with regard to the present crime. In the case on hand, the suspected money which was deposited in the account of the Petitioner is a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Due to the blanket order to freeze the entire account, Respondent Nos.3 to 5-Bank has freezed the account in its entirety. As such, the Petitioner is unable to operate its account and deal with 3 the money lying in its account. Under the guise of investigation, order of freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount and period, cannot be passed and such an order will be construed as violation of fundamental rights of trade and business. 5. Considering the submissions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apposite to direct Respondent Nos.3 to 5- Bank to de-freeze the account of the Petitioner and to keep a lien over a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, it is clarified that if there are any other independent freeze orders received by Respondent Nos.3 to 5 unrelating to this incident, they will be at liberty to continue the freeze for such amounts also. 6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:18.08.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.17014 of 2025 Dt.18.08.2025 Dinesh