1 Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 03.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010230042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12283/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MANSOOR, S/O SHAIK ZABI NO. 425/B, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSORE - 570019, KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, BANKING DIVISION, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001, 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI 522239 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR-522503, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SHO, ICHAPURAM RURAL POLICE STATION ICHAPURAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532312. 5. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED HEAD OFFICE, FEDERAL TOWERS, P.B. NO. 103 ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 683101. 6. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, FEDERAL TOWERS, P.B. NO. 103 ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 2 683101. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus or Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the Police communication letter issued to the bank/ 5th respondent - Federal Bank and quash the same after declaring it as, illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of the settled principles of law, violation of the provisions of Banking regulation, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 5th Respondents to defreeze the savings account, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5th Respondents to defreeze and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HEMANTH KUMAR KORAGANJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GANESH PALADUGU 2. GP FOR HOME 3. The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that, based on a complaint alleging fraudulent transaction of Rs.15,000/-, the 4th respondent (SHO) issued instructions to the 5th respondent-Bank to freeze the petitioner’s entire bank account, thereby stalling all operations. 3 2. Heard Sri Venkat Narayana, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paladugu Ganesh, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 & 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that the petitioner’s bank account has been frozen by the 5th respondent-Bank at the instance of the 4th respondent, without issuing notice and without following due process of law. He further submitted that, as on the date of freezing, an amount of Rs.1,30,782.82/- was lying in the petitioner’s account and by virtue of such freezing, the petitioner is unable to operate his account or access his own funds and meet daily expenses, causing severe financial hardship. He further submitted that the manner in which the petitioner’s account has been frozen is unsustainable, contrary to law and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, that too when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Unless the freezing of the petitioner's account is de-freezed, he will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Sri Paladugu Ganesh, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 & 6 submitted that, pursuant to a request from Law Enforcement Autority in connection with Cyber Crime Complaint No.20207250028788 dated 16.10.2025 registered in Ichapuram Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner’s the account was freezed. 4 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on counter submitted that, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mysore and was employed in Dubai from 19.12.2023 to 18.12.2025 and possesses a savings bank account bearing No.55550101422283 with Federal Bank Limited, whose Head quarters are at Ernakulam, Kerala State. Therefore, it is no way connected to the 4th respondent police station and no SHO from Ichapuram Rural Police station gave orders to the bank authorities directing to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. He further submitted that, the police authorities have not received any petition or PGRS complaint or any report from the petitioner as alleged by him and they are no way concerned to the freezing of petitioner’s bank account and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties. 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, when the alleged disputed amount in only Rs.15,000/- arising out of single transaction of Rs.25,000/-, the authorities have frozen the entire account of the petitioner having a balance of Rs.1,30,782.82/-. While exploring overseas employment opportunities through online, the petitioner contacted Mr.Lakshay Birdi and paid Rs.25,000/- to him towards initial registration charges for over-seas job related services via Google pay. Later, upon the request of the petitioner, the said amount was refunded to him to his Federal Bank account via Google Pay. On 16.10.2025, one Mr.Sudhakar appears to have given a police complaint against Mr.Lakshay Birdi alleging that fake work permit was provided to him. While investigating the said complaint, as the petitioner has also made transactions to the Mr.Lakshay Birdi, 5 his account was subjected to total freeze and a lien of Rs.15,000/- was marked without any prior notice or intimation, due to which the petitioner is unable to operate his account or access his own funds and meet daily expenses. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is no way connected to the said complaint, he has no knowledge or information or reason to believe that the said Mr.Lakshay Birdi has involved in any alleged fraudulent or illegal activity and his interaction was limited solely to the above mentioned transaction, which was also refunded much prior to the filing of the cyber crime complaint on 16.10.2025. 7. The Unified Payments Interface (UPI), through platforms like PhonePe and Google Pay, has become the standard medium for financial transactions. When an individual transacts using these applications, it is humanly and practically impossible for a vendor to verify that customer's credentials or criminal background. Consequently, without establishing any direct involvement of the petitioner in the underlying offense, or proving mens rea (guilty intent), the authorities cannot arbitrarily freeze the petitioner's entire bank account merely because an unverified customer transacted with them. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., empowers investigative agencies to seize property suspected to be stolen or linked to an offense. However, this power must be exercised with restraint. Freezing an entire operational bank account containing lakhs of rupees for a disputed transaction of ₹15,000 is an algorithmic overreach. It paralyses the citizen's daily survival. This Court draws inspiration from settled jurisprudence, including recent rulings where courts have held that a citizen's entire bank account cannot be frozen 6 arbitrarily due to isolated, unverified UPI interactions. A clear distinction must be made between the actual "proceeds of crime" and the untainted personal savings of an innocent user. The absolute debit freeze on the Petitioner’s account cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it violates Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, this court is inclined to dispose of the same with the following directions: The Respondent Bank is directed to lift the hold on the petitioner's savings bank account immediately, except for the specific disputed amount of ₹15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). The said amount of ₹15,000 shall remain frozen in the account pending the completion of the investigation by respondent authorities. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the Cyber Crime Police as and when required for further clarification. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 03.07.2026 BRS Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable