HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 10061 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Dixit, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 07.11.2024 issued by the Chief Manager, Baroda U.P. Bank on the ground that respondent no.4-Station House Officer, Police Station-Holagarh, District Prayagraj has no jurisdiction whatsoever in case of dispute between private parties to request the Bank to freeze the Bank Account No. 52930100012247 of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a direction/instruction issued by respondent no.4 is without jurisdiction and thus, freezing of bank account of the petitioner on the basis of such instruction/direction of Station House Officer is illegal and cannot be sustained in law. 4. This Court on 01.07.2025 granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter. 5. Sri V.K. Dixit, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on instructions, which are taken on record, states that Sri Savin Tomar, Station House Officer, (as he then was) (now Sub Inspector) has issued the instruction/direction.When he was confronted with a query as to under which provision of law, respondent no.4 could have made a request/direction to the Bank to freeze the bank account of the petitioner, Sri V.K. Dixit, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the respondent no.4 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gyan Prakash Shrivastava Ramashankar .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) has issued such instruction inadvertently. 6. The respondent no.4-Savin Tomar, Station House Officer (now Sub Inspector) is present before the Court and a query has also been put to him as to under which provision of law he has given such a direction/instruction to the Bank to freeze the bank account of the petitioner, but he could not demonstrate his authority under law to issue such a direction/instruction. 7. Because of the conduct of respondent no.4, the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss inasmuch as the petitioner could not operate his bank account for about nine months due to illegal direction issued by the respondent no.4. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact and further considering the fact that respondent no.4-Savin Tomar, Station House Officer (now Sub Inspector) has no respect even for the Court inasmuch as we found him standing in the Court and talking on mobile phone and thus, conduct of respondent no.4 is very casual and cannot be appreciated. 9. In such view of the fact, we direct the competent authority to record an adverse entry in the service book of respondent no.4-Savin Tomar, Station House Officer (now Sub Inspector). 10. We further find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly, set aside. We direct the respondent no.3-Branch Manager, Baroda Bank, Branch Holagarh, Prayagraj to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner forthwith, if there is no legal impediment. 11. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. September 22, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 10061 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad