- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17296 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ROSHNI RAJ AGED 36 YEARS, W/O SIDARTH RAJ RESIDING AT, 17/A, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KANCHARAKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN, MUNSHI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 084 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SIJI MALAYIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ICICI BANK NEHRU ROAD BRANCH AT NO.8, NEHRU ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 084 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NAVSARI RURAL POLICE STATION, DASERA TEKRI, NAVSARI GUJARAT-396 445 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAURANIPUR POLICE STATION, MAURANIPUR RD, MAURANIPUR, RONI, UTTAR PRADESH - 284 204 … RESPONDENTS ® Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 (BY SRI. SHILPA G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ATUL N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE R1 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE -F AND TO DEFREEZE THE PETITIONER'S SAVINGS ACCOUNT BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 315801500001 MAINTAINED IN ICICI BANK NEHRU ROAD BRANCH (RESPONDENT NO.1 BANK HEREIN) AND TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO OPERATE HER ACCOUNT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction to the Respondent No.1 to consider representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-F and to defreeze the Petitioner's savings account bearing Account No.315801500001, Maintained in ICICI Bank, Nehru Road Branch (Respondent No.1 Bank herein) and to permit the Petitioner to operate her account; b) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner is stated to be maintaining a savings Bank account with respondent No.1-Bank, into which his earnings and other legitimate receipts are deposited. The petitioner contends that the said account was placed under debit freeze by respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 No.1 pursuant to communications received from the Station House Officer, Navsari Rural Police Station, State of Gujarat, and the Station House Officer, Mauranipur Police Station, State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Upon learning of the debit freeze, the petitioner sought copies of the communications based on which the action had been taken. On receipt thereof, the petitioner found that the communication issued by the Navsari Rural Police Station pertained to an amount of Rs.19,400/-, while the communication issued by the Mauranipur Police Station pertained to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the aggregate amount covered under the said communications was only Rs.1,19,400/-. 4. According to the petitioner, the balance available in the account was substantially in excess of the said amount and, therefore, even assuming that the directions issued by the investigating authorities were valid, the debit freeze ought to have been restricted only to the amount specified therein. It is in those circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 5. Upon issuance of notice, respondent No.1-Bank entered appearance through its learned counsel and filed its statement of objections. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Bank submits that apart from the communications received from the police authorities in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, the Bank had also received a communication from the Bajpe Police Station directing the Bank to mark a lien and debit freeze an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is therefore contended that the Bank acted strictly in compliance with the directions received from the investigating authorities and cannot be faulted for having taken steps to secure the funds in question. 7. Heard Sri Surya S., learned counsel appearing for Sri Siji Malayil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Shilpa G., learned counsel appearing for Sri Atul N. Menon, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Bank. Perused the records. 8. Debit freeze orders are increasingly being issued by investigating agencies in connection with cybercrime investigations. The purpose of such directions is to preserve suspected proceeds of crime, prevent dissipation of funds and protect the interests of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 victims who may have suffered financial loss. Such measures are intended to ensure that, if the investigation ultimately establishes the commission of an offence, the funds remain available for restitution, compensation or such other action as may be permissible in law. 9. It is therefore incumbent upon banks to promptly comply with lawful directions issued by competent investigating authorities. Failure to do so may frustrate the investigation, enable diversion of funds and adversely affect the rights of victims seeking recovery of monies lost through cyber fraud and other financial crimes. 10. However, while implementing such directions, Banks are equally required to bear in mind the rights and interests of the account holder. The action taken by a Bank must necessarily balance the interests of the investigating agency and the alleged victims on the one hand and the rights of the account holder on the other. 11. This is particularly so in cases where the account holder is not shown as an accused in the criminal proceedings and there is no allegation that he has personally participated in the commission of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 offence under investigation. Merely because certain funds connected with an investigation are traced to a particular account does not automatically justify freezing the entire account irrespective of the amount involved. 12. A Bank account often contains a person's salary, savings, pensionary benefits, business receipts and funds required for day-to-day sustenance. Freezing the entire account may have severe civil consequences, including the inability to meet household expenses, educational commitments, medical requirements, business obligations and other legitimate financial needs. Therefore, any restriction imposed must be proportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved. 13. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the power exercised by an investigating agency to direct freezing or protection of funds is intended to preserve property suspected to be connected with the commission of an offence. The purpose of such power is preservation and protection and not punishment. Therefore, the extent of the restriction imposed must bear a direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 14. In recent years, with the rapid increase in cyber frauds and online financial crimes, investigating agencies across the country have been issuing large numbers of debit freeze communications to Banks. While the need to protect victims of cybercrime cannot be doubted, it is equally necessary to ensure that innocent account holders are not subjected to disproportionate restrictions. The rights of victims and the rights of account holders are not mutually exclusive. The legal system is required to protect both. 15. A Bank receiving such communication acts only as an implementing agency. It is neither the investigating authority nor the adjudicating authority. It is not for the Bank to enlarge the scope of the communication received from the investigating agency. If the investigating authority identifies a particular amount as being connected with the alleged offence and seeks protection thereof, the role of the Bank is confined to securing that amount. The Bank cannot assume that the entire balance lying in the account is tainted merely because a specified sum has been identified by the investigating agency. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 16. If such an approach were to be accepted, grave consequences would follow. For instance, if an account contains Rs.25,00,000/- and the investigating agency seeks protection of only Rs.25,000/-, freezing the entire account would effectively deprive the account holder of access to Rs.24,75,000/- without there being any corresponding direction from the investigating authority. Such a consequence would be manifestly disproportionate and incapable of legal justification. 17. The doctrine of proportionality, which is now a well- recognised principle of administrative law, requires that the measure adopted must not be more restrictive than what is necessary to achieve the intended purpose. Once the investigating agency itself quantifies the amount sought to be protected, the restriction imposed by the Bank must ordinarily be confined to that amount. Any action beyond the quantified amount would amount to the Bank creating a restriction not contemplated by the investigating agency itself. 18. This aspect assumes greater significance where the account holder is not shown as an accused in the criminal proceedings. The material on record does - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 not indicate that the petitioner is an accused in any of the cases under investigation. The communications relied upon by the Bank merely seek protection of specified amounts. Therefore, while the investigating agencies are fully justified in securing the amounts suspected to be connected with the alleged offences, there is no justification for completely disabling the petitioner from operating the remainder of the account. 19. A Bank account in today's financial ecosystem is not merely a repository of money. It is an essential financial instrument through which an individual receives income, conducts business, pays taxes, meets educational expenses, discharges medical obligations and attends to day-to-day financial commitments. An indiscriminate freeze of the entire account may therefore have consequences extending far beyond the amount sought to be protected. Such action may adversely affect the livelihood of the account holder and, in appropriate cases, the livelihood of family members dependent upon him. 20. This Court has also noticed an increasing number of petitions being filed challenging blanket debit freeze orders implemented by Banks. In several such cases, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 communications issued by investigating agencies identify specific amounts, yet Banks proceed to freeze the entire account. Such an approach not only results in unnecessary litigation but also causes avoidable hardship to citizens. Banks are therefore required to adopt a more calibrated and proportionate approach while implementing such directions. 21. It is needless to observe that if an investigating agency intends that the entire account should be frozen, it is always open to such authority to issue an appropriate direction to that effect. In such a situation, the Bank would be bound to comply. However, where the communication identifies only a specific amount and seeks protection thereof, the Bank cannot unilaterally convert a limited restriction into a complete freeze of the account. 22. In the present case, respondent No.1-Bank received communications relating to three specific amounts, namely Rs.19,400/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, aggregating to Rs.4,19,400/-. The investigating agencies themselves quantified the amount sought to be protected. Thus, there was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 neither any ambiguity nor any uncertainty regarding the extent of protection sought. 23. Once the amount stood quantified, respondent No.1- Bank was required to secure only the said sum of Rs.4,19,400/-. The Bank could have achieved this objective by marking an appropriate lien, hold or debit freeze to that extent and permitting the petitioner to operate the balance amount. Such an approach would have adequately protected the interests of the investigating agencies while simultaneously safeguarding the legitimate rights of the petitioner. 24. If respondent No.1-Bank entertained any doubt regarding the nature, scope or effect of the directions received, the proper course would have been to seek clarification from the concerned investigating agencies. The Bank could not have assumed for itself that a direction relating to a specified amount required freezing the entire account irrespective of the balance available therein. 25. Banks occupy a position of trust and are expected to act fairly, reasonably and proportionately while implementing directions issued by statutory authorities. They are required to protect not only the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 interests of investigating agencies but also the legitimate interests of their customers. Mechanical implementation of such directions without examining their scope and extent may result in avoidable hardship to innocent account holders. 26. In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent No.1-Bank has acted beyond the scope of the communications received by it. The directions placed on record pertain only to an aggregate amount of Rs.4,19,400/-. There is no material produced before this Court indicating that any of the investigating agencies had directed freezing of the petitioner's entire account irrespective of the balance available therein. 27. The action of respondent No.1-Bank in freezing the entire account is therefore disproportionate to the directions received and cannot be sustained. By freezing the account in its entirety despite the balance being substantially higher than the amount sought to be secured, the Bank has imposed a restriction greater than what was required by the investigating agencies themselves. 28. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that while respondent No.1-Bank is fully justified in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 securing and preserving the aggregate amount of Rs.4,19,400/- in terms of the communications issued by the investigating authorities, there is no justification for preventing the petitioner from operating the balance amount standing to his credit. 29. The action of respondent No.1-Bank is accordingly liable to be modified by restricting the debit freeze and lien only to the aggregate amount of Rs.4,19,400/- and permitting the petitioner to operate the account in respect of all amounts in excess thereof, subject of course to any further lawful directions that may be issued by the competent investigating authorities in accordance with law. 30. As such, this court passe the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is partly-allowed. ii) Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to restrict the debit freeze to the orders which have been received by respondent No.1 amounting to Rs.4,19,400/- and permit the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28132 WP No. 17296 of 2025 Petitioner to operate the rest of the Bank account. iii) It is further made clear that if any further orders are received by the Bank as regards this particular account, the Bank would be free to debit freeze/mark lien as regards that particular amount. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76