W.P.(CRL)/3035/2026 of ARJUN SINGH BORA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR SAURABH MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

%

28.09.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’], aggrieved by the freeze on the State Bank of India [‘SBI’] Account No. 00000020004733706 and HDFC Account No. 5010 0506 5477 46, as well as for setting aside of the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by learned Trial Court whereby Rs. 4,49,995/- from SBI account was released without notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

2. It is stated that initially there were freezes on the credit transactions dated 06.03.2026 and 10.03.2026, and now there has been a fresh freeze marked on 07.08.2026.

3. The Petitioner states that he has not been heard by any forum concerning these freezes, and that he possesses all the documents required to justify the legitimacy of the transactions/credits in question.

4. Mr. Madhav Krishna Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, states that the Petitioner has the remedy of approaching the concerned Branch Manager of the SBI and HDFC to avail the grievance redressal mechanism set out in the Standard Operating Procedure [‘SOP’]1 dated 02.01.2026 of Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and, more specifically, paragraph no. 10.2 of Section III, which has been made binding on all the banks as directed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No (s). 3/2025.

5. Separately, Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned ASC, states that the present petition has not been properly filed as it has been filed through a Power of Attorney [‘POA’] Holder, who is also the advocate representing the Petitioner.

6. This Court finds merit in the submissions raised by Mr. Tyagi, learned ASC, that the present petition cannot be entertained and the POA Holder would have to engage a counsel separately to represent him. It is not permissible for the POA Holder to also act as an Advocate. 1 For NCRP-CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of money and Grievance Redressal

7. Moreover, as contended by counsel for Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner would have to first avail the remedy of the redressal provided in the SOP dated 02.01.2026 by approaching the Branch Manager of SBI and HDFC Bank.

8. At this stage, Mr. Akshit Kapur, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of SBI. He states that the Petitioner can approach the concerned Branch Manager on 05.10.2026 at 10 A.M. and he will be duly attended to.

9. The Petitioner is directed to avail the said remedy provided in the SOP in the first instance, and in case he still has any grievance, he will be at liberty to approach the Court in a properly filed petition.

10. Also, the Investigating Officer [‘I.O.’] in E-FIR No. 127/2026, Police Station Cyber South, Saket, New Delhi, is present in the Court along with the learned ASC. The Petitioner, through his lawyer, is at liberty to appear before the said I.O. to provide all information available with it for opposing freeze on his accounts.

11. Mr. Tyagi, learned ASC also states that Petitioner may have to approach Magistrates of each jurisdiction where the respective FIRs have been registered leading to the disputed freeze on the accounts. In this regard, this Court notes that the Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the SOP should be followed in the first place and thereafter, if need be, the Petitioner may approach the concerned Magistrates.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

13. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/rhc/aa