SANDEEP KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — CWP/11519/2026

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

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010618592026

e-Filing Number

10-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/22000/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11519/2026

Registration Date

16-Apr-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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP KUMAR

    Adv. PANKAJ BAINS

  2. 2.Union of India

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Union of India

  3. 3.HDFC Bank

  4. 4.The Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh

  5. 5.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu

  6. 6.The Director General of Police Haryana Police

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered HDFC Bank to de-freeze Sandeep Kumar's account within one week, finding that the blanket account freeze without a Magistrate's order under Section 107 of BNSS was disproportionate and arbitrary. The court noted no FIR was registered against the petitioner and the ₹8,580 marked as suspicious should remain frozen but the account otherwise unfrozen, as innocent account holders cannot suffer merely because crime proceeds temporarily passed through their accounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11519/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered HDFC Bank to de-freeze Sandeep Kumar's account within one week, finding that the blanket account freeze without a Magistrate's order under Section 107 of BNSS was disproportionate and arbitrary. The court noted no FIR was registered against the petitioner and the ₹8,580 marked as suspicious should remain frozen but the account otherwise unfrozen, as innocent account holders cannot suffer merely because crime proceeds temporarily passed through their accounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case