WP(C)/16680/2026 of SAGAR RANJAN LENKA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026 Order No.

03.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank and learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that, considering the above facts and circumstances the lordship may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause, as to why a writ in the nature of

Mandamus shall not be issued against the Opposite parties more particularly Opp. Party No.3 and 5 directing them to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner vide Account No. 50100404025218 maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd Anasarapur Branch, Cuttack and permit him to operate the same without any hindrance, forthwith, AND If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the RULE absolute. AND Pass any other order/ orders, writ/ writs and/or direction/directions as may deem proper by this Hon'ble Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party-Bank in putting the savings bank account of the Petitioner in debit freeze mode, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner, who was given no intimation regarding the debit freeze, is not being permitted to operate his savings bank account. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed that necessary direction be given to the Bank to permit the Petitioner to operate his bank account

5. Learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, contended that upon receipt of certain request by the Cyber Crime Police from Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh & Kerala, the bank account of the Petitioner has been kept under debit freeze. He further submitted that the total amount that has been defrauded as per the allegation is Rs.3,668/-. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank, on instruction, submitted that the Bank will have no objection in the event the Petitioner is permitted to operate the account keeping aside the defrauded amount as has been alleged and as per the instruction received by the Opposite Party-Bank.

6. Learned counsel for the State, at this juncture, contended that the State of Odisha has no role in such debit freeze of the Petitioner’s bank account.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party- Bank to permit the Petitioner to operate his account by keeping aside the defrauded amount as has been intimated by the various police departments of different states. Further, the Petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the Bank that he shall re-deposit the amount in the event such defrauded amount determined after the investigation is found to exceed the amount deposited.

8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge

S.K. Rout

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2026 10:44:38 Signature Not Verified