- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: HEMALATHA V W/O CHANNAKESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, DEVALAPUR, NEAR DEVANAGONDI RAILWAY STATION, DEVALAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL KARNATAKA -560067 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATH M A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE STATE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY, INVESTIGATING OFFICER/ INSPECTOR, NEAR VIJAY NAGAR SQUARE, VIJAYANAGAR, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH 452010. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 3. KARNATAKA BANK REPRESENTED BY, THE BRANCH MANAGER, CITY CIVIL COURT BRANCH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560009 4. SBI BANK REPRESENTED BY, THE BRANCH MANAGER, CITY CIVIL COURT BRANCH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED SRI. K V SHYAMA PRASAD & DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO DEFREEZE THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO USE AND OPERATE THE BANK A/C NO. 1172500100575001 IFSC KARB0000117, MAINTAINED WITH RESPONDENT NO 3 KARNATAKA BANK LTD, KARNATAKA. 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO DEFREEZE THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO USE AND OPERATE THE BANK A/C 64191989870 MAINTAINED WITH RESPONDENT NO 4 STATE BANK OF INDIA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by a practicing Advocate who is aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4/Banks who have debit freezed the petitioner's account on receipt of communication from Cyber Crime Police Station, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1–State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4–Banks. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with, as this Court is not inclined to grant an order of absolute defreezing and the interests of the complainant are adequately safeguarded. 3. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate before this Court, asserts that the amounts credited to her bank accounts represent legitimate professional fees earned for legal services rendered. It is her specific case - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 that one Mr. Anoop Singh Tomar, a resident of Indore, had approached the petitioner’s husband, who is also a practicing Advocate, seeking legal assistance in proceedings before the Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. In that backdrop, the petitioner contends that the subject remittances were received towards professional engagement and not from any unlawful activity. However, it transpires that the very client has lodged a complaint before respondent No.2, which in turn has triggered a communication to respondent Nos.3 and 4–Banks, resulting in debit freezing of the petitioner’s accounts. 4. This Court is constrained to observe that freezing of a bank account is a serious and drastic measure, which has the effect of virtually paralyzing the financial autonomy of a citizen. Such an action, which trenches upon the fundamental right to carry on profession and to deal with one’s property, cannot be resorted to either casually or mechanically. The primary object of directing debit freeze is to secure the alleged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 “proceeds of crime” or to preserve the subject matter of investigation in relation to a cognizable offence. Therefore, such power must necessarily be exercised only when there exists a live and proximate nexus between the funds in the account and the alleged criminal activity, ordinarily backed by the registration of a First Information Report and supported by some tangible material indicating involvement in a cognizable offence. 5. Of late, this Court notices an increasing tendency on the part of investigating agencies to invoke the mechanism of debit freezing as a matter of course, even in cases where there is not even a slender piece of evidence demonstrating that the amounts lying in the account constitute proceeds of crime. Such indiscriminate freezing, often without registration of an FIR or without any meaningful investigation, results in disproportionate hardship and amounts to an unwarranted invasion into the financial rights of citizens. The power to freeze, being drastic in nature, must be exercised with circumspection, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 guided by the principles of necessity, proportionality and procedural fairness. 6. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and asserts that the amounts represent professional fees, coupled with the absence of material placed before this Court demonstrating a clear linkage of the entire account balance with any cognizable offence, this Court is of the considered view that the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4–Banks in completely freezing the accounts is disproportionate. At the same time, the interests of the complainant and the investigating agency require to be safeguarded by preserving the alleged disputed amounts by way of a limited lien. 7. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the case warrants partial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by balancing the competing interests of investigation and the petitioner’s right to carry on her profession without undue hindrance. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part; (ii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4–Banks are directed to forthwith defreeze the petitioner’s Bank Accounts bearing Nos. 1172500100575001 and 64191989870 and permit the petitioner to operate the same; (iii) However, respondent Nos.3 and 4– Banks shall confine the lien on the said accounts strictly to a sum of Rs.2,64,900/- and Rs.1,14,900/- respectively, representing the alleged disputed amounts; (iv) The petitioner shall be at liberty to operate the said bank accounts for all transactions beyond the aforesaid lien amounts, and the Banks shall not impose any restriction on such operations; (v) It is made clear that the continuation of lien shall be subject to further orders that may - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19585 WP No. 2144 of 2026 be passed by the competent Court or authority in accordance with law; (vi) Having regard to the submission that the complaint is at a nascent stage, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief, in the event no First Information Report is registered or if the investigation does not progress in accordance with law within a reasonable time; (vii) No costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55