$~131 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8978/2026 & CM APPL. 42062/2026 INDRAJEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohmmad Mubeen, Adv. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh K Rout, SC for R-1/SBI Mr. Rahul Mourya, GP for R-3/UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “a) A writ of certiorari calling and perusing the case's records; b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records and quashing the freeze instructions/liens issued by Respondent Nos. 3 executed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the Petitioner’s savings accounts. c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, thereby directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (both banks) to forthwith defreeze the Petitioner’s aforesaid bank accounts and restore full operational access This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25 thereto…” 2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3. Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel accepts advance notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1/ SBI. 4. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a Constable in C Company of 8th Battalion, RAC (IR) Ghazipur Delhi (110096). He maintained a savings-cum-salary account No. 37564378793 with the respondent No. 1/SBI Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi. The petitioner also maintained another savings account being 915010022022888 with Axis Bank, Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi. 5. One Mr. Amra Ram asked the petitioner to lend him Rs. 20,000/- and since Mr. Amra Ram was known to the petitioner, the petitioner advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000/- through UPI. In January, 2026, Mr. Amra Ram returned the money to the account of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the accounts of the petitioner has been frozen. 6. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 7. Mr. Mubeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to an email dated 10.02.2026, which reads as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25 8. A perusal of the above shows that the account of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No. 2/Axis Bank, Darya Ganj Branch has been freezed for a disputed amount of Rs. 2963.74/-. 9. The freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for the petitioner in the present case as the salary account of the petitioner has been freezed and the same might result in commercial death of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without any application of mind. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25 10. Additionally, a coordinate bench of this Court has made categorical observations in paragraph No. 19 of its Order dated 16.01.2026 titled as Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4198/2025, that actions of blanket freeze in cases where the account holder is neither an accused nor a suspect, are manifestly arbitrary and in clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is not only in clear violation of the principles of natural justice but also disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The impugned action is without due application of mind as an indiscriminate blanket freeze has been imposed on all the accounts of the petitioner for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amount. Therefore, the action deserves to be set aside. 12. Consequently, the petition is allowed and it is hereby directed that the accounts of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No.1/SBI and the respondent No. 2/Axis Bank shall be de-freezed and activated except for a lien on an amount of Rs. 2963.74/-, forthwith. 13. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition and the same is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 8, 2026/sp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:42:25