- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10109 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SYED SARFARAZ AHMED S/O MUNEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.09, E STREET, 4TH CROSS, BHARTINAGAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 001 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DBS BANK INDIA LIMITED EXPRESS TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI, 400021. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. CYBER CRIME CELL PATIALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SHO 993J 7C5, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 PHULKIAN ENCLAVE, DASHMESH NAGAR, PATIALA, PUNJAB - 147 004 3. CYBER CRIME CELL GUJARAT AHMEDABAD CITY, BUNGLOW NO.15, DAFNALA CROSS RD, NEAR IPS MESS, SHAHIBAG, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SHO &RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 02.04.2026, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1A TO DEFREEZE THE PETITIONERS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 881032792089 HELD WITH THE R1 DBS BANK INDIA LIMITED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the first respondent bank in freezing the petitioner's savings account bearing No.881032792089. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The petitioner asserts that he is maintaining a savings bank account with the first respondent3Bank, which he routinely utilizes for his day-to-day and bona fide financial transactions. It is his specific case that he ekes out his livelihood as a milk vendor and is entirely dependent on the said account for carrying on his avocation. The grievance of the petitioner arises from two email communications issued by the first respondent3 Bank, whereby the petitioner was informed that, acting upon communications received from the second and third respondents/Investigating Agencies, his bank account has been frozen on the premise that certain alleged <crime - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 proceeds= to the tune of Rs.120/- each have been credited to his account. 4. A careful and closer scrutiny of Annexure3A, which is one of the impugned email communications issued by the first respondent3Bank, discloses that the freezing action emanates from a complaint registered by the Cyber Police, Punjab, Patiala City, Rajpura. Pursuant thereto, the said Investigating Agency had instructed the Bank to mark a lien to the extent of Rs.120/- in the petitioner9s account. Likewise, another communication, as reflected in Annexure3B, indicates that the Cyber Police, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat, had also issued similar directions to the first respondent3Bank to debit-freeze the petitioner9s account and mark a lien for a sum of Rs.120/-. Acting on both these communications, the first respondent3Bank has proceeded to freeze the petitioner9s entire account. 5. On a conjoint reading of Annexures3A and B, it becomes manifest that the total amount alleged to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 linked with the purported crime proceeds is only Rs.240/-. It is, however, the categorical assertion of the petitioner that he is maintaining a balance of more than Rs.10,000/- in the said savings bank account. Thus, the measure adopted by the Bank has the effect of disabling the petitioner from accessing a substantially higher amount than what is under dispute. 6. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the action of the first respondent3Bank in freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner, for a disputed amount of merely Rs.240/-, is justified, reasonable and proportionate. This Court is of the considered view that when the scope of investigation is confined to a minuscule sum, the freezing of the entire account, which contains funds far in excess of the disputed amount, would be manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate. Such an action not only causes undue hardship to the petitioner but also results in irreparable prejudice to his right to carry on his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 lawful avocation and financial affairs, without in any manner substantially advancing the object of the investigation. 7. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the interests of the Investigating Agencies can be sufficiently safeguarded by directing the first respondent3Bank to mark a lien only to the extent of the alleged disputed amount of Rs.240/-. Such a course would strike a balance between the requirement of investigation and the petitioner9s fundamental right to operate his bank account and carry on his livelihood. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part; ii. The first respondent3Bank is directed to forthwith mark a lien over the petitioner9s bank account to the extent of Rs.240/-, being the amount allegedly involved in the subject crime; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17982 WP No. 10109 of 2026 iii. The petitioner shall be permitted to operate the said bank account in respect of the balance amount, i.e., the amount in excess of Rs.240/-; iv. The first respondent3Bank shall ensure that the petitioner maintains a minimum balance of Rs.500/- in the said account; v. Subject to maintaining the aforesaid minimum balance, the petitioner shall be at liberty to operate the account strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21