Allahabad High Court
WRIC/35568/2026 of GHANSHYAM TIWARI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 8 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35568 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-bank and learned Standing Counsel for the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35568 of 2026
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to command the respondent to de-freeze/remove the LIEN from the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No.1811104000053297 in IDBI Bank, Branch Sector-51, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned Counsel for the Bank has produced the statement of account, which is marked as 'x' and retained on record. He pointed out two transactions to be dubious in the said statement of account i.e. one transaction of Rs.1,10,000/- and another of Rs.8,00,000/-, which are subject matter of investigation.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if account has been freezed on the basis of a complaint and for some disputed amount the entire account should not be freezed. The bank can always put on hold the disputed transactions while de-freezing the account for its operation.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the controversy is no more res integra in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India and 6 others (Writ - C No.- 1489 of 2026). He also placed reliance of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khalsa Medical Store Thru. Prop. Yashwant Singh v. Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 3 others passed in Writ - C Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Kant Tiwari Ghanshyam Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
No.- 12211 of 2025 decided on 19th January, 2026.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may direct for de-freezing the account of the petitioner by holding back the disputed amount and the Court may also direct the bank to freeze the account again in the event any further complaint is received or otherwise any direction is received from the Cyber Crime department or the police department.
7. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India and 6 others passed in Writ- C No.- 1489 of 2026 decided on 8th April, 2026 and direct the bank to de-freeze the current account of the petitioner by holding back the disputed amount.
8. However, it will remain open for the bank to freeze the account of the petitioner again in future if any complaint sought is received either from the police department or cyber crime department. September 9, 2026 S.P. WRIC No. 35568 of 2026 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad