KIRPAL SINGH SANGWAN vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CWP/8077/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 17-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010439062026

e-Filing Number

12-03-2026

Filing Number

CWP/15134/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/8077/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.15 - MISC. UOI ( 741 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KIRPAL SINGH SANGWAN

    Adv. SANDEEP KUMAR

  2. 2.State of Haryana and Another

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.State of Haryana and Another

  3. 3.Punjab National Bank

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Punjab National Bank to de-freeze Kirpal Singh Sangwan's pension and savings accounts within one week, finding that freezing accounts without a magistrate's order under Section 107 of BNSS and without naming the petitioner in any FIR was disproportionate and arbitrary. The court held that merely because ₹1,87,000 in suspicious entries passed through the account does not justify freezing entire accounts of innocent account holders, emphasizing such action violates the right to livelihood unless investigation reveals complicity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/8077/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Punjab National Bank to de-freeze Kirpal Singh Sangwan's pension and savings accounts within one week, finding that freezing accounts without a magistrate's order under Section 107 of BNSS and without naming the petitioner in any FIR was disproportionate and arbitrary. The court held that merely because ₹1,87,000 in suspicious entries passed through the account does not justify freezing entire accounts of innocent account holders, emphasizing such action violates the right to livelihood unless investigation reveals complicity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case