APHC010133862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7450/2026 Between: 1. KOTA HARSHINI, D/O. RADHA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 23-980/1, 1ST LINE, REDDY NAGAR, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI -522237 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI -522503. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NTR DISTRICT -520001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY -520001. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA -520010. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SN PURAM PS, VIJAYAWADA - 520011. 7. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VINUKONDA BRANCH, LAWYERS STREET, VINUKONDA -522647 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PADALA VENKATA SRIRAM REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. V DYUMANI The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly Writ in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the 5th Respondent in issuing notice directing the Respondents No.7 and 8 to freeze the account of the Petitioner without following due process of law and action of 7th Respondent in freezing the bank account of Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitution al and consequently direct the 7th Respondent to de-freeze the account of the Petitioner and pass…” 2. Heard Sri Padala Venkata Sriram Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.7. 3. Sri Padala Venkata Sriram Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that without there being an order from the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’ the amount of the Petitioner was seized by the Respondent No.7 on the ground that some suspicious transactions were ensuing in the account of the Petitioner. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that Respondent No.6 has requested the Respondent No.7 to freeze the account of the Petitioner as some suspicious transactions were initiated in the account of the Petitioner. 5. Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.7 submits that freezing of the account was taken place by Respondent No.7 3 pursuant to the instructions given by Respondent No.6 by way of issuing a notice under Section 94 of ‘the BNSS’. 6. This Court on 15.04.2026 directed that Respondent No.7 not to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the amount referred in suspicious transactions but liberty was given to have lean on the suspicious amount. This Court by referring to various judgments, in Blue Sea Ventures LLP v. State of A.P.,1 and M/s.Mineral on Ground v. State of A.P.,2 held that the police authorities, in purporting to freeze the Petitioners’ bank accounts under Sections 94 and 106 of ‘the BNSS’, acted without jurisdiction and contrary to law, since such debit-freezing or attachment of accounts can only be ordered under Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’ by the competent Magistrate after following due process. It was further observed that indiscriminate freezing of both personal and business accounts, without judicial sanction, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, and that banks, having acted in a ministerial capacity upon police notices, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the impugned notices were declared ultra vires and the Petitioners’ accounts directed to be defrozen. 7. The Respondent No.6 has no authority under Section 94 of ‘the BNSS’ to instruct the Respondent No.7 to freeze the account of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.6 ought to have approached the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing application under Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’ 1 W.P.No.5034 of 2026 2 W.P.No.3870 of 2026 4 seeking for a direction to freeze the account of the Petitioner by Respondent No.7. 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 in issuing notice contemplated under Section 94 of ‘the BNSS’ dated 06.06.2025 is illegal and arbitrary and against Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’, consequently the impugned notice is set aside. However, liberty is given to the Respondent No.6 to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing application under Section 107 of ‘the BNSS’ for attachment of the suspicious or disputed amount or have lean on the amount. Until such time, the Respondent No.7 is directed to have lean on the disputed amount. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.05.2026 VTS