- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15911 WP No. 6336 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6336 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: AZEEM ULLA KHAN S/O AMANULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF AS MEDICAL STORE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.85A/1/22/1, WARD NO.5, YELLUKUNTE, NEAR MECCA MASJID, OLD MANGAMMANAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 068 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER TABREZ, S/O RAHAMATH ULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A VILLA NO.40, KRISTAL AQUAMARINE, ATTIBELE ROAD, MANCHENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 562 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED, HSR LAYOUT BRANCH, HAVING OFFICE AT 1192 SANDEEP ARCADE, 5TH MAIN, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15911 WP No. 6336 of 2026 20TH CROSS, SECTOR 7, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BELLARY RURAL POLICE STATION, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, BSNL COLONY, BALLARI, KARNATAKA - 583 101. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THANE TOWN POLICE STATION, JUHU CHANDAN SOCIETY, JAMBLI NAKA, THANE WEST, THANE, MUMBAI - 400 601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2026, NOTICE TO 1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT / AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD TO DE-FREEZE THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. 2302255650690306 HAVING ITS BRANCH AT HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed feeling agreed by the action of first respondent/Financial Bank in freezing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15911 WP No. 6336 of 2026 petitioner's Bank account on receipt of communication sent by respondents 2 and 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner, who is running a medical store, is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1–Bank in freezing his bank account pursuant to a communication issued by the Investigating Agency directing the Bank to mark a lien over a disputed amount of ₹80,970/-. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to defreeze his current account. However, having regard to the fact that the disputed amount is only ₹80,970/- and considering that the petitioner is carrying on business of a medical store, the action of respondent No.1 in freezing the entire bank account appears to be harsh and disproportionate. 4. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15911 WP No. 6336 of 2026 and upon perusal of the material on record, is not inclined to accede to the principal relief sought in prayer ‘A’ for quashing the action of respondent No.1–Bank in freezing the account. Nevertheless, the facts and circumstances of the case warrant a limited interference insofar as the manner in which the lien has been effected. 5. A perusal of the records indicates that respondents No.2 and 3, during the course of investigation, had issued a communication to respondent No.1–Bank to mark a lien to the extent of ₹80,970/-. However, while acting upon the said communication, respondent No.1–Bank, instead of restricting the lien to the said amount, has proceeded to freeze the entire account of the petitioner. Though the Investigating Agency is empowered to secure the disputed amount or ensure availability of funds during the course of investigation, such exercise of power ought not to result in a complete or unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s right to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15911 WP No. 6336 of 2026 operate his bank account, particularly when the amount sought to be secured is specifically quantified. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that lien marking shall operate only to the extent of ₹80,970/-, since the petitioner runs a medical store and therefore as a businessman petitioner is entitled to operate the bank account. The apprehension expressed by the State that the proceeds of crime need to be preserved is equally appreciated by this Court. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Action of respondents No. 2 and 3 in directing the first respondent/Bank to mark a lien on the petitioner's account bearing No.2302255650690306, to an extent of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15911 WP No. 6336 of 2026 ₹80,970/- is upheld and shall continue to remain in force. (iii) However, petitioner shall be permitted to operate the said Bank account for any amount in excess of ₹80,970/- and first respondent/Bank shall not impose any restriction on the operation of the account beyond the said lien amount pending completion of investigation by the Investigating Officer. (iv) Petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and shall appear and furnish such information or documents if insisted by the Investigating Agency. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BVK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14