$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010462802026 + W.P.(C) 14235/2026 RAKESH SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Rahul, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. J.P Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union, Mr. Manish Raghav, Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Rajan Thakur, Advs. for R-1/ UOI Mr. Rout, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- “a) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ of the like nature, thereby directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to defreeze the account of the Petitioner bearing No. 911010015662376…” 2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3. Mr. Manish, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1/ Union of India. 4. Mr. Rout, learned counsel, who was present in Court today has been requested to accept notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2/ Axis Bank, which he has so done and has argued the matter. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner maintains a savings bank account bearing No. 911010015662376 with respondent No. 2 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 07/10/2026 at 15:34:51 bank. The petitioner received a friendly loan of Rs. 10,000/- from his friend in the aforesaid bank account. Since the said amount was reported online on Citizen Financial Cyber Frauds Reporting and Management System (“CFCFRMS”), the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen. 6. My attention has been drawn to Annexure P-3, which shows that the disputed amount is Rs. 10,000/-. 7. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that freezing of the account of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has serious consequences and is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without complying with the principles of natural justice and without any application of mind. 8. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the impugned action of freezing the bank account, in the present case, is disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. 9. Therefore, subject to the respondent No. 2 maintaining a lien on Rs. 10,000/-, the petitioner will be permitted to operate his bank account. 10. The petitioner is also entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings for de-freezing of the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”). 11. With these directions, the present petition is allowed and disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 25, 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 07/10/2026 at 15:34:51