RAM NARAYAN CHATURWEDI vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

1

CGHC010305522026 2026:CGHC:39271
Digitally signed
by YOGESH
TIWARI
Date: 2026.09.08
17:26:05 +0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4518 of 2026
1 - Ram Narayan Chaturwedi S/o Late Ramchandra Chaturwedi Aged
About 43 Years R/o Village Matiya, P.O. Tikaree, Tahsil Masturi, District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Urmila Chaturwedi W/o Ram Narayan Chaturwedi Aged About
40 Years R/o Village Matiya, P.O. Tikaree, Tahsil Masturi, District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
State Bank of India Through Branch Manager, S B I Branch Code
12127, Branch Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
08.09.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
the following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondent to forthwith

2
remove the hold/freezing on the petitioners'
Bank Account No. 30086782755 maintained
with the State Bank of India, Branch Masturi,
District -Bilaspur (C.G.), and permit the
petitioners to operate the said account.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent bank to keep
on hold only the disputed amounts of ₹5,000/-,
₹9,500/- and ₹782.85 and permit the
petitioners to freely operate the remaining
balance, including withdrawal of his salary and
operation of the account.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to award costs of the petition in
favour of the petitioners.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in
favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble
Court deemed fit & just in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners' bank account maintained with the State Bank of India,
Branch Masturi, District Bilaspur, bearing Account No.
30086782755, has been put on hold on account of certain
transactions which, according to the respondent Bank, are
suspicious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is
serving as a Head Constable/GD in the Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF) and his monthly salary is regularly credited into the
aforesaid bank account. Learned counsel further submits that,

3
apart from the salary transactions, the said account is also being
utilised for repayment of the petitioners' home loan through
monthly EMIs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that certain
amounts of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.9,500/- and Rs.2,782.85/- were
credited into the petitioners' bank account from unknown sources
and, thereafter, in June, 2026, the respondent Bank placed a hold
on the entire bank account, thereby rendering the account
completely inoperative. It is submitted that, on account of the
freezing of the entire account, the petitioner No.1 has been
prevented from withdrawing and utilising his salary and is unable
to meet his day-to-day financial obligations. It is further submitted
that the home loan EMIs are also not being deducted from the
said account, resulting in the petitioners incurring additional
interest liability.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
No.1 thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated
08.07.2026 before the respondent Bank, which was received on
09.07.2026, requesting the Bank to release/de-freeze the account
or, in the alternative, to restrict the hold only to the disputed
amounts and permit the petitioners to operate the remaining
balance in the account. However, despite receipt of the aforesaid
representation, no action has been taken by the respondent Bank.
It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the

4
respondent Bank for de-freezing the petitioners' bank account,
subject to such conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits, on
instructions, that the petitioners' bank account was put on hold in
view of certain transactions which were received from unknown
sources and are presently under scrutiny/investigation. However,
it is fairly submitted that the transactions in question are limited to
the amounts of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.9,500/- and Rs.782.85/-. It is
further submitted that, except for the aforesaid transactions, no
other amount lying in the petitioners' bank account is the subject
matter of such scrutiny.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the
transactions under scrutiny are confined to the disputed amount.
In such circumstances, continuation of the hold over the entire
bank account would be disproportionate and would unnecessarily
prejudice the petitioners in operating the account for their regular
and lawful financial affairs.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
transactions in question or the ongoing investigation, it is directed
that the respondent Bank shall retain the lien/hold only to the
extent of Rs.17,725.37/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Seven
Hundred Twenty-Five and Thirty-Seven Paise only) and shall
release/de-freeze the remaining balance amount lying in the

5
petitioner's bank account forthwith. The petitioners shall,
accordingly, be permitted to operate the account and undertake all
lawful banking transactions in respect of the amount remaining
after retention of the aforesaid sum of Rs.17,725.37/-.
8. It is, however, made clear that the aforesaid direction shall not
come in the way of the competent authority/investigating agency
in proceeding with the investigation in accordance with law. The
petitioners shall extend full cooperation to the concerned
authority/investigating agency and shall furnish such information
and documents as may be lawfully required in connection with the
transaction under scrutiny.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
10. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- /-
/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh