Allahabad High Court

WRIC/9467/2026 of ANKUR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 6 May 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 9467 of 2026 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the Union of India. 2.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 9467 of 2026

Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has prayed for the following main relief:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's Bank Account No.038410175277, IFSC Code IPOS000001 maintained at India Post Payments Bank, Delhi Srinivaspuri Branch, and allow the petitioner to free access to his bank account without any hindrance."

3. It is submitted that controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Khalsa Medical Store Thru. Prop. Yashwant Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor And 3 Others passed in Writ-C No.12211 of 2025.

4. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. In such view of the fact, we dispose off the writ petition in terms of the judgement and order passed in the case of Khalsa Medical Store (supra) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhola Nath Garg Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajesh Tripathi Ankur .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)

with a direction to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner and release all the amount withheld by the respondent-Bank except the disputed amount i.e. Rs.1,200/-. It is made clear that in case respondent-Bank finds any further suspicious transaction in the account of the petitioner, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to freeze the account of the petitioner. May 7, 2026 Kuldeep WRIC No. 9467 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead