1 2026:CGHC:22114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1665 of 2026 1 - Shanu Dhekava D/o Shatruhan Lal Dhekava Aged About 34 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Dr. Khubchand Baghel Ward, Near C.S.E.B. Office, New Changorabhatha, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Authorized Officer, Regional Business Office Rbo-01, Bayron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Branch Manager Govt. Engineering College Branch, State Bank Of India, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Its Authorized Officer, Subhashish Parisar, Satya Prem Vihar, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Cyber Police Station Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardha, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondents concerned pertaining to case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do directing the respondent No. 1 to 3 to defreeze the account of the Petitioner with immediate effect. 10.3 Impose exemplary costs upon the erring respondents for their acts and omissions, and award adequate compensation to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the proceedings. 10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner maintains a savings bank account bearing No. 33386973805 with respondent No. 1, State Bank of India at its Government Engineering College Branch, Raipur. According to the petitioner, the said account has been regularly operated for lawful personal and financial transactions and there has never been any misuse or illegality associated with the said account. It is further the case of the petitioner that around the month of November of the previous year, the petitioner attempted to withdraw money from the aforesaid account, however, the petitioner was denied access to the funds lying therein. Upon making inquiry with the concerned bank officials, the petitioner was orally informed that the account had been frozen/put on hold and the petitioner was advised to contact the Cyber Police authorities for further information. The petitioner has further averred that thereafter the petitioner visited the Cyber Police Station, Raipur, however, no satisfactory response was provided and the petitioner was again advised to approach the Bank authorities. According to the petitioner, despite repeated visits to the offices concerned, no concrete solution has been provided till date. It is also the case of the petitioner that no prior notice, written communication or order has ever been supplied to the petitioner disclosing the reasons for freezing the account. The petitioner further submitted an application under the 4 Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the reasons and documents pertaining to freezing of the account, however, no response has been received till date. Being aggrieved by the freezing of the account and the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been implicated as an accused in any criminal case and there exists no material to justify freezing of the petitioner’s bank account. It is contended that the respondents have acted in a wholly arbitrary and mechanical manner without providing any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that freezing of the bank account without disclosing any reasons or without following due process of law is violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is argued that due to freezing of the account, the petitioner is facing grave financial hardship and is unable to meet day-to-day financial requirements. Learned counsel therefore prays that the respondent authorities be directed to de-freeze the account of the petitioner. 4. Jointly opposing the petition, learned State counsel along with learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, State Bank of India submit that the account in question was frozen pursuant to instructions issued by the competent authorities in connection with 5 an inquiry/investigation. It is further submitted that the Bank has acted strictly in compliance with the directions received from the concerned authorities. Learned counsel submit that insofar as the disputed amount is concerned, the same may be retained/held by the Bank till completion of inquiry/investigation by the competent authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner is required to cooperate with the authorities concerned whenever called upon for the purposes of inquiry/investigation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings and documents available on record, it appears that the account of the petitioner has been frozen in connection with an inquiry being conducted by the concerned authorities. It further appears that according to the petitioner, no communication or order specifying the reasons for freezing of the account has been supplied till date. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and particularly considering the fact that continued freezing of the entire bank account is causing hardship to the petitioner in carrying out day- to-day financial activities, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 1, State Bank of India, to de-freeze the account of the petitioner while holding the disputed amount, subject to further orders of the competent authority. 6 8. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the authorities concerned and whenever called upon for the purposes of inquiry/investigation, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned authorities and extend full cooperation in the proceedings. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or inquiry involved in the matter and the competent authorities shall proceed independently in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge