Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 06/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Miss Preeti Sakat, daughter of Mr. Dinesh Sakat, residing in Anchhidongri, Lormi, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh; Respondent No.1 – State Bank of India (SBI) through its Lormi Branch; Respondent No.2 – State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector, Gadchiroli Police Station.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (WPC No. 3461 of 2026) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the bank to remove a debit freeze/lien on the petitioner’s savings account.
  • Background: The petitioner holds Savings Bank Account No. 36029167508 (IFSC SBIN0003259) with SBI Lormi Branch. The account was frozen following a cyber‑complaint of “Online Financial Fraud” registered with Gadchiroli Police Station (NCRP Acknowledgement No. 31905260095335). The complaint identified a disputed transaction of Rs 500 dated 08.05.2026 (Transaction ID/UTR No. 302202296240) and listed the petitioner’s account merely as a Layer‑3 account.
  • Police Verification: After verification, Gadchiroli Police found the complainant’s amount already refunded and issued an official letter dated 30.05.2026 (No. CYBER/Unfrozen Account/OW.No.2026‑2998) addressed to the Branch Manager of SBI Lormi, requesting immediate defreezing of the petitioner’s account. The letter was received by the bank on the same day.
  • Bank’s Response: SBI contended that the disputed amount had been refunded and indicated that the account could be defrozen once the petitioner furnishes E‑KYC, income certificate, and other documents, subject to continued surveillance.
  • Petitioner’s Situation: Due to the freeze, the petitioner could not access her funds. Her father, Mr. Dinesh Sakat, transferred Rs 50,000 via PhonePe/Google Pay on 08.06.2026 (UPI Transaction ID 678964856532), which also remained inaccessible.
  • Reliefs Sought: The petitioner sought (i) issuance of a writ directing SBI to defreeze the account, (ii) release of the frozen amount, (iii) declaration that the bank’s continued inaction is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, and (iv) any other appropriate relief.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, noting the amicable submissions, directed SBI Lormi Branch to defreeze the petitioner’s account and permit her to operate it for all lawful purposes, including day‑to‑day transactions.
  • The bank must comply with this order within ten (10) days from the date of the order.
  • The Court clarified that the order does not preclude the bank from keeping the account under surveillance after defreezing.

Topics: Bank Account Freeze, Court Order, Consumer Banking