APHC010189892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9617/2026 Between: 1. J K RAJESH SINGH, S/O. JAVERI KAPISHA NARASIMHA SINGH, AGED 55 YEARS, 11/687-U.P, HABEEBULA STREET KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH-516 001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522237 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINTAKOMMA DINNE POLICE STATION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 516001 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD., LAKDIKAPOOL BRANCH, HYDERABAD 500004 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.9617 of 2026 Dated 10.04.2026 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in freezing the petitioners bank A/c.No.50100210015581 as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to immediately defreeze the petitioners bank account and pass such order(s).” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner‟s account has been unauthorizedly frozen by Respondent No.3, as per the instructions of Respondent No.2, without following due process of law. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 has no authority to direct Respondent No.3 to freeze the account, inasmuch as it is the prerogative of the jurisdictional Magistrate to pass appropriate orders under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”). 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that, in the course of investigation, Respondent No.2 directed Respondent No.3 to freeze the account by issuing an appropriate notice. The said notice was duly complied with by Respondent No.3, and the account was frozen. It is further submitted that the amount lying in the Petitioner‟s account represents money allegedly obtained by way of extortion from one G. Prabhakar, the de facto complainant. 3 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.9617 of 2026 Dated 10.04.2026 5. As seen from the record, the de facto complainant, namely G. Prabhakar, lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and others, which was registered as a case in Crime No.57 of 2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 347, 386, 389, 506, 102(b), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “IPC”), on the file of Chintakommadinne Urban Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. In the course of investigation, Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 25.03.2026 under Sections 34 and 106 of the BNSS and Rule 3(h) and 3(1) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to Respondent No.3, directing it to freeze the Petitioner‟s account. 6. This Court, in W.P.Nos. 5034 and 3870 of 2026, dated 31.03.2026, held that the police have no power or authority to direct a banker to freeze the account of any subscriber or accused; instead, they are required to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, in the course of investigation, by way of a necessary application seeking orders for freezing of the account. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No.2, without any authority, issued the notice dated 25.03.2026 to Respondent No.3, and such notice has no statutory sanction. Therefore, the said notice dated 25.03.2026 is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the account of the Petitioner shall be defreezed. However, it is left open to the Investigating Officer/Respondent No.2 to approach the 4 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.9617 of 2026 Dated 10.04.2026 jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate orders under Section 107 of „the BNSS‟. 9. Until such orders are passed, Respondent No.3 is directed not to permit withdrawal of the disputed amount. However, Respondent No.3 shall allow the Petitioner to operate the account, subject to the above restriction. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.04.2026 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.9617 of 2026 Dated 10.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Writ PETITION No.9617 of 2026 Date: 10.04.2026 KMS