- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RIYANSH GARG AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O PARVEEN KUMAR GARG, R/AT H NO -E-802, BLOCK-RIVIERA, ELDECO GREEN MEADOWS GREATER NOIDA, RAMPUR JAGIR, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH - 201 306. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ADHIRA A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, ALI ASKER RD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 051 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA POLICE INSPECTOR, NO. 6/2, KAMALAMMA BUILDING, OPPOSITE ST. JOSEPH'S SCHOOL AND CHURCH, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 066. 3. FEDERAL BANK REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, FINTECH PARTNERSHIPS DEPARTMENT INTEGRATED STARTUP COMPLEX, KSUM, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 683 503. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 TO FORTHWITH ISSUE APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION / NOC TO RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR DEFREEZING THE PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 77770124352556 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:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2–police in issuing a communication to respondent No.3–bank directing it to mark a lien over the petitioner’s bank account to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, in all aggregating to Rs.30,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the communication issued by respondent No.2 only required the bank to mark a lien for the aforesaid amount, respondent No.3–bank has proceeded to freeze the entire bank account of the petitioner. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to issue an appropriate communication/No Objection Certificate to respondent No.3–bank for defreezing the petitioner’s bank account bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 No.77770124352556 and to permit the petitioner to operate the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3– bank. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The petitioner claims that he is a software developer aged about 21 years and is maintaining a savings bank account with respondent No.3–bank. It is the case of the petitioner that based on a complaint lodged in relation to a cybercrime, respondent No.2– police issued a communication to respondent No.3– bank directing it to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. Acting on the said communication, respondent No.3–bank has frozen the entire bank account of the petitioner, thereby preventing him from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 operating the account and utilizing the funds lying therein. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from the jurisdictional police officer, fairly submits that the communication issued by respondent No.2 was only to the limited extent of directing the bank to mark a lien to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, which represents the amount involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction under investigation. However, the bank has proceeded to freeze the entire account of the petitioner. She therefore submits that if the bank marks a lien to the extent of Rs.30,000/- as indicated in the communication issued by respondent No.2, the State would have no objection for permitting the petitioner to operate the bank account in respect of the remaining amount. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 5. This Court has carefully examined the material placed on record and more particularly Annexure–E, which is the communication addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3–bank in relation to the alleged cybercrime. A perusal of the said communication would clearly indicate that the amount which forms the subject matter of investigation is confined to a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which is stated to have been credited to the petitioner’s bank account. At this stage, there is no material placed before this Court to demonstrate that the entire balance available in the petitioner’s account represents proceeds of crime or is otherwise connected with the alleged offence. 6. In that view of the matter, and having regard to the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the communication issued - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 by respondent No.2 was only for marking a lien to the extent of Rs.30,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that the action of respondent No.3–bank in freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner appears to be disproportionate, unreasonable and not in consonance with the principle of proportionality. When the subject matter of investigation is confined only to a sum of Rs.30,000/-, freezing of the entire bank account containing a substantially higher balance would result in undue hardship to the petitioner. Such an action would seriously prejudice the petitioner, who claims to be a young freelancer and software developer aged about 21 years, whose livelihood and ongoing professional activities are dependent upon the operation of the said bank account. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the interest of investigation can be sufficiently - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 safeguarded if respondent No.3–bank is directed to mark a lien to the extent of the disputed amount of Rs.30,000/- and permit the petitioner to operate the account subject to maintaining the said amount in the account. Such a course would strike a balance between the requirement of preserving the amount involved in the alleged transaction pending investigation and the petitioner’s right to carry on his lawful profession and utilize the remaining funds available in his bank account. 8. Accordingly, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. Respondent No.3–bank is directed to mark a lien over the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.77770124352556 to the extent of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 Rs.30,000/-, which represents the amount involved in the alleged transaction under investigation. iii. Subject to the aforesaid lien, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the said bank account in respect of the balance amount available in excess of Rs.30,000/-. iv. Respondent No.3–bank shall ensure that the petitioner maintains a minimum balance of Rs.30,000/- in the said account until further orders or until completion of the investigation. v. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall respond to any notice or summons that may be issued by respondent No.2 in connection with the pending criminal proceedings. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15496 WP No. 4177 of 2026 vi. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the investigation in any manner. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30