Defreezing bank accounts subject to criminal investigations must be sought before jurisdictional criminal courts.

The appellant, Vivek Sasidharan, maintained bank accounts with respondents 1 to 3—State Bank of India and Axis Bank.

Various law-enforcement agencies, arrayed as respondents 4 to 29, communicated to the banks that investigations and criminal cases were pending against the appellant in different parts of India.

Acting on those communications, the banks froze the appellant’s accounts.

The appellant filed W.P. No.15606 of 2025 seeking de-freezing of the accounts, or at least permission to operate them after retaining only the amounts quantified by the investigating agencies.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 13 June 2025, leading to the present writ appeal.

Whether the appellant was entitled to operate the bank accounts notwithstanding the freezing directions issued by the banks on the basis of communications from various law-enforcement agencies

Whether the appellant’s request to retain only the amounts allegedly connected with the investigations and to operate the accounts with respect to the remaining balance could be granted in writ jurisdiction

Whether the appellant was required to approach the jurisdictional criminal courts in the respective cases for appropriate orders concerning de-freezing of the accounts

The Court applied the principle that where banks freeze accounts pursuant to communications from investigating or law-enforcement agencies concerning pending criminal investigations, the banks cannot permit operation of the accounts contrary to those communications unless appropriate orders are obtained from the competent jurisdictional criminal courts.

The Court further held that disputes concerning the extent of attachment or the release of amounts connected with criminal investigations should be addressed before the courts having jurisdiction over the respective criminal cases, rather than through a general writ direction to the banks.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment

The Court noted that multiple police authorities had informed the respondent banks about investigations and registered cases involving the appellant, and that several communications mentioned crime numbers and indicated that the amounts involved were still being ascertained.

In those circumstances, the banks’ decision to freeze the accounts was based on communications issued by investigating agencies and could not be characterised as unjust merely because it restricted the appellant’s banking operations.

The Court declined to direct the banks to release the unquantified balance or permit partial operation of the accounts, holding that the appellant’s remedy was to seek suitable orders from the respective jurisdictional courts where the criminal cases had been registered.

The Court left it open to the appellant to approach the jurisdictional courts in the concerned criminal cases and seek appropriate orders for de-freezing or otherwise operating the accounts.

There was no order as to costs.