2026:JHHC:22036 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3623 of 2026 ------ Mohammad Aarif, son of Mohammad Taslim, resident of Village Pipradih, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chandrapura Branch, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 3. The Assistant Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chandrapura Branch, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Vincent Marki, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ------ 04/ 21.07.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, including a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents, particularly the Respondent Bank, to forthwith consider and decide the representation(s) of the Petitioner in a time-bound manner and to immediately unfreeze and restore full operation of the Petitioner's Savings Bank Account bearing A/C No.33248372177 maintained with the State Bank of India, Chandrapura Branch, Bokaro, which has been arbitrarily and illegally frozen without due process of law, thereby ensuring unhindered access to and operation of the said account by the Petitioner." 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and 2026:JHHC:22036 2 learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his bank account has been freezed illegally and the same be directed to be defreezed and full operation of his bank account be also restored. 4. Vide order dated 15.05.2026, this Court prima facie found that the fraudulent transaction in the account of the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.1,000/-; and directed the respondents to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner. The Court further directed that an amount of Rs.2,000/- will be marked as a lien over and above the minimum balance, which the petitioner needs to maintain in his account. 5. Today, learned counsel representing the respondent - Bank submits that the account of the petitioner has been defreezed. He submits that now only there is a lien of Rs.3,500/-, as the transaction of amount of Rs.500/- was recorded post the order passed by this Court earlier. 6. Considering the submission that the entire bank account of the petitioner has not been freezed and only an amount of Rs.3,500/- has been kept on lien, I am inclined to dispose this writ petition, with a direction to the respondent - Bank that if in future, they receive any complaint or information to keep further amount on lien, they should inform the same to the petitioner and give details of such transactions and then only will keep the amount of lien and further will not disburse the amount to any Authority or person, without order of any Competent Court. 7. The excess amount which the Court had directed to be 2026:JHHC:22036 3 kept on lien, will be treated to be the minimum balance which the petitioner must maintain in the account. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 21st July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 29.07.2026