- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16869 WP No. 23770 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23770 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR AFSAR PASHA S/O LATE M BABJARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 05, DEVANUR LAYOUT, BEHIND EDEN GARDEN, RAJIVNAGAR, MYSORE, KARNATAKA 570019 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. DEEPTHI BHAT .,ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. RANGANATH M A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE STATE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IZAT NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY, INVESTIGATING OFFICER/ INSPECTOR, 9CQM, MINI BYP, RAJEEV KUNJ COLONY BAREILLY UTTAR PRADESH-243122 3. HDFC BANK REPRESENTED BY, THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK, NO 97/A, 1ST MAIN SHIVAJI RAO ROAD N R MOHALLA MYSORE, KARNATAKA-570007 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16869 WP No. 23770 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. JAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 BANK TO DEFREEZE THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO USE AND OPERATE THE BANK A/C NO. 50200053559539, IFSC-HDFC0009283 MAINTAINED IN HDFC BANK LTD, N R MOHALLA BRANCH, MYSORE KARNATAKA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking direction against respondent No.3/Bank to defreeze the account of petitioner and permit petitioner to operate the bank account bearing A/c No.50200053559539, maintained with respondent No.3/Bank. 2. The petitioner asserts that he is engaged in a lawful commercial activity of trading in commercial vehicles, predominantly involving the purchase and sale of trucks. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16869 WP No. 23770 of 2025 communication issued by respondent No.2—Investigating Officer, directing respondent No.3/Bank to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. It is contended that acting solely on the basis of such communication, the Bank has proceeded to freeze the entire account of the petitioner, thereby bringing his business operations to a standstill. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material on record with care and circumspection. 4. A perusal of the records would indicate that respondent No.2, in the course of investigation, has addressed a communication to respondent No.3/Bank seeking to secure the alleged proceeds of crime by directing the Bank to mark a lien over the petitioner’s account to the extent of Rs.1,96,801/-. However, it is evident that the Bank, instead of confining its action to the said quantified amount, has proceeded to freeze the entire account of the petitioner. Such action, in the considered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16869 WP No. 23770 of 2025 opinion of this Court, travels beyond the scope of the communication issued by the Investigating Officer. 5. It is trite that while the Investigating Agency is vested with the authority to take necessary measures to secure suspected proceeds of crime and to ensure availability of funds during the course of investigation, such power is not unbridled. The exercise of such power must be proportionate and tailored to the exigencies of the case. Freezing of an entire bank account, particularly when the alleged amount involved is specifically quantified, would amount to an excessive and unreasonable restriction, impinging upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to carry on trade and business. The action of respondent No.3/Bank, therefore, cannot be sustained to the extent it results in a complete embargo on the operation of the account. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16869 WP No. 23770 of 2025 6. In the case on hand, the amount indicated by respondent No.2 as being subject to investigation is Rs.1,96,801/-. Therefore, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the lien is restricted to the said amount. At the same time, balancing the interest of the investigation with the petitioner’s right to carry on business, it would be appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall maintain a minimum balance equivalent to the said amount in the account, pending completion of investigation or until further orders are passed by the competent authority. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part; (ii) The action of respondent No.3/Bank in freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16869 WP No. 23770 of 2025 is held to be arbitrary and disproportionate, and is accordingly modified; (iii) Respondent No.3/Bank is directed to mark a lien on the petitioner’s account bearing No.50200053559539 to the extent of Rs.1,96,801/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and One only), which shall remain in force subject to further orders; (iv) The petitioner is permitted to operate the bank account for all transactions, subject to maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.1,96,801/- therein during the pendency of the investigation or until further orders by the competent authority. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43