1 CGHC010262842026 2026:CGHC:28816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3581 of 2026 Faiz Alam S/o Firoz Alam, aged about 30 years, Proprietor of M/s Fashion Point (Now Closed), R/o Masanganj, Ward No. 17, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - H D F C Bank Limited Through Its Authorised Officer, Registered Office At H.D.F.C. Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400013. 2 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Bank, Link Road Branch, Block A, Rao Trade Center, Link Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001. 3 - State of Maharashtra Through The Station House Officer, Cyber Police Station, Pune City, District Pune, Maharashtra. 4 - State of Tamil Nadu Through The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Wing, Sp-I (Sccic), Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 5 - State of Tamil Nadu Through The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Wing, Sp-I, Chennai West, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 6 - Reserve Bank of India Through Its Concerned Officer, Central Office, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001. 7 - The Union of India Through The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi 110001. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For UOI : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Central Govt. Counsel. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ Bank to forthwith de- freeze/ unhold the current account of the Petitioner bearing Account No. 50200060322111, while withholding only the disputed amount in connection with the alleged transactions, and to permit the Petitioner to freely operate the remaining balance for all lawful purposes, including withdrawal and day-to-day transactions; 10.2 To direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Bank not to close the account of the Petitioner and to inform the concerned investigating agency of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court; 10.3 To pass any other order in favour of the Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's bank account was freezed pursuant to a complaint alleging that an amount of ₹1,200/- was credited into the account from an unknown person, and the said transaction is stated to be under surveillance. It is submitted 3 that the account has subsequently been freezed. He further submits that the petitioner is a businessman and is operating his business through the said bank account. It is contended that continued freezing of the account would adversely affect the petitioner's business operations and cause financial hardship due to disruption of commercial transactions. It is submitted that the petitioner's account was frozen on 04.05.2026, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted an application on 06.06.2026 seeking appropriate relief. However, the authorities have informed the petitioner that, in view of the information received from the concerned authorities of the States of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the account has been kept under freeze. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the authorities in the States of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have received information indicating that the petitioner's bank account has been defreezed, and that the matter is presently under inquiry in connection with the alleged commission of an offence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the transaction alleged to be fraudulent pertains to an amount of only ₹1,200/-, which is stated to have originated from the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. In such circumstances, even if an investigation is in progress, freezing the petitioner's entire bank account would not be justified or proportionate, particularly when the disputed amount is only Rs. 1,200/-. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the concerned Bank 4 and the authorities of the concerned States are directed to defreeze the petitioner's bank account, while retaining a freeze/lien over the disputed amount of 1,200/- until further orders or completion of the ₹ investigation, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall not withdraw the said disputed amount and, in case withdrawal of any substantial amount from the account becomes necessary, he shall first obtain appropriate permission by submitting an application before the concerned Bank as well as the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. The petitioner shall further furnish to the investigating agency his complete residential address, details and location of his business establishment, along with two active mobile numbers, and, if he is in possession of a passport, shall surrender the same before the competent authority, if so required in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating authorities as and when called upon to do so. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, and the investigating agency shall be at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. 6. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju