1 2026:CGHC:19819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2060 of 2026 1 - Maneesh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Ghanshyam Bhardwaj Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bijour, B.R. Yadav Nagar, Ward No. 49, Near Parau Baba Water Tank, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (By Profession An Advocate Practicing In District Court Bilaspur) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through - Its Branch Manager, Branch Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State House Officer Through The Police Station Gigna, District- Mirzapur (U.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Anumeh Srivastava, Advocate. S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 1 – State Bank of India, Branch Rajkishor Nagar, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the savings account of the petitioner bearing Account No. 37846624377 has been frozen without issuance of any prior notice and without assigning any reasons. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession. The petitioner is maintaining a savings account with respondent No. 1. One AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.30 18:08:56 +0530 2 criminal case in sessions case No. 78/2024, whereas the petitioner is representing the accused persons namely Ramchandra Kewat and Durga Prasad Kewat in the said case, they are charged with the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and after full-fledged trial both the accused persons are acquitted from the charges, the accused persons engaged the petitioner as an Advocate to represent them before the learned trial court i.e. Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for that purpose the fee as fixed by the petitioner was Rs. 10,000/- for the trial, on 27.11.2024 after acquittal from the full-fledged trial Rs. 8,000/- was credited in the account of petitioner by the accused Durga Prasad Kewat and sum of Rs. 2000/- is also credited on the same date on 27.11.2024 by Durga Prasad Kewat. It is the case of the petitioner that suddenly his bank account was frozen without any prior intimation. Upon inquiry, it was informed that due to certain UPI transactions fraud which are suspicious/unlawful, have lead to such action. The petitioner submits that no FIR or criminal proceedings have been initiated against him and despite repeated representations, no action has been taken by the bank authorities to defreeze the account. Due to freezing of the account, the petitioner is facing severe financial hardship as he is not able to debit the money from his amount. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to defreeze the petitioner's saving bank account No. 37846624377 saving account IFC Code No. SBIN0009408 situated at State Bank of India, Branch Rajkishor Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.) with immediate effect. 3 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to take action upon the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No. 1/Bank dated 10.09.2025, 17.11.2025 & 16.01.2026 and letter communication made to respondent No. 2 dated 29.01.2026 within stipulated time and take decision of defreeze the bank account of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of freezing the account without notice is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and without authority of law. It is further submitted that in absence of any criminal proceedings or cogent material, the entire account could not have been frozen. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while justifying the action, submits that the account was frozen due to suspicious transactions; however, fairly submits that the bank is concerned only with safeguarding the amount under suspicion. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties fairly agree to a workable arrangement that the amount which is under suspicion may be withheld by the respondent bank, and so far as the remaining amount in the account is concerned, the petitioner may be permitted to operate the same. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and particularly in view of the consent arrived at between them, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the following directions: (i) The respondent No.1 – State Bank of India is directed to identify and withhold only 4 such amount which is under suspicion in connection with the alleged transactions. (ii) The remaining amount in the petitioner’s account shall be released, and the petitioner shall be permitted to freely operate his bank account for all lawful purposes, including withdrawal of salary and day-to-day transactions. (iii) The respondent bank shall ensure compliance of this order within a period of 10 days from the today. 8. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from proceeding in accordance with law with respect to the amount under suspicion. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash