WRIC/28511/2025 of VIKRAM NAYYAR @ SANJEEV NAYYAR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 13 May 2026

1. Heard Sri Ambuj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondent-bank to defreeze the bank account of the petitioners bearing account nos. 914010014455444 and 914010016914060.

3. It is submitted that though there was some complaint lodged against the petitioner no. 1 by a third party in which criminal trial took place but these two bank accounts were not in question; nor were subjected to any attachment by the order of the competent court except for the complaint made by the police during investigation to the bank to freeze the account. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the bank account has neither been seized nor attached as a result of the criminal trial against the petitioners and hence there is no order of the competent court of law directing the bank to attach the account. In the circumstances therefore it is pleaded that since the bank account was freezed only during investigation by the police, upon subsequent submission of the charge-sheet trial had been held, the accounts in question not being questioned the bank ought to have defreezed the accounts. He has also placed reliance upon the authority of this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat vs. Union of India and 6 others (Writ - C No.1489 of 2026 along with connected writ petitions, decided on 08.04.2026). Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ambuj Mishra, Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Syed Imran Ibrahim, C.S.C., Ramesh Kumar Shukla Vikram Nayyar @ Sanjeev Nayyar And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

4. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioners have neither approached the bank itself nor produced an order of court of law so as to enable the bank to pass orders on the application for defreezing the account.

5. Upon a pointed query being made, Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim fairly concedes that there was no order of attachment in respect of these two bank accounts, however he could not demonstrate as to whether there was any dispute of transaction in these two bank accounts of the petitioner, which have been freezed.

6. In view of the above, we direct the petitioners to move an application before the Branch Manager of the concerned branch of the bank within two weeks from today and in the event, such application is filed, the respondent- bank would defreeze the bank account of the petitioners in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ashish Rawat (supra).

May 14, 2026 Pratima WRIC No. 28511 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad