Suman Roy vs. State Bank Of INDIA And 4 Others

Held

The Court held that the bank's action of placing a 'hold on lien mark' on the petitioner's account was arbitrary and high-handed. The Court found no indication in the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4 that the petitioner's bank account was involved in any suspicious financial scam. The Court noted that the information about financial issues mentioned in the counter affidavit did not pertain to the petitioner's bank account and there was no specific contention against the petitioner. The Court opined that the impugned email dated 05.12.2025 and the subsequent letter dated 06.12.2025 were issued to frustrate the writ petition and override the earlier email dated 18.06.2024 from the Investigating Officer requesting the removal of the lien. The Court found the bank's reliance on an SOP to be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, stating that laws are made for citizens, not vice versa. The Court observed that the bank had not applied its mind pragmatically, causing mental agony and physical stress to the petitioner. The Court noted that the bank account had been un-freezed and a cost of Rs. 50,000/- had been paid to the petitioner by the respondent bank. Consequently, the impugned proceedings dated 05.12.2025 and 06.12.2025 were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, Suman Roy, a distributor of SIM cards, filed a writ petition challenging the 'hold on lien mark' placed on his SBI bank account (Account No. 36366774370) by the State Bank of India (SBI), Kanchanpur Branch. This action prevented him from conducting any transactions. The lien was reportedly placed following an FIR (No. 2392/2023) lodged at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, Telangana. Despite repeated inquiries, the bank initially provided no clear explanation. Later, the petitioner learned that the lien was imposed for investigation purposes. An email dated 18.06.2024 from the Inspector of Cyber Crimes requested the removal of the lien, but the bank did not comply, shifting responsibility. Subsequently, an email dated 05.12.2025 from the Cyber Crimes Inspector and a letter dated 06.12.2025 from the SBI Branch Manager were issued, which the petitioner contended were intended to frustrate his writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 'hold on lien mark' placed on the petitioner's bank account by the respondent bank, SBI, Kanchanpur Branch, based on an FIR lodged at Cyberabad, Telangana, was arbitrary and unjustified, thereby infringing the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the bank officials failed to provide a clear reason for freezing his account. He contended that an email dated 18.06.2024 from the Inspector of Cyber Crimes requested the removal of the lien, but the bank failed to act. He further argued that subsequent communications, specifically the email dated 05.12.2025 from the Cyber Crimes Inspector and the letter dated 06.12.2025 from the Branch Manager, were issued to frustrate the writ petition and override the earlier communication for de-freezing. The petitioner sought compensation for the infringement of his rights. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent No. 4 (Investigating Officer) stated that the lien was imposed for investigation purposes. The respondent bank shifted responsibility to the Investigating Officer, referring to a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the Government. The bank argued that it had no authorization to de-freeze the account without instructions from the Investigating Officer.