Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.Kuchi Sobha Sree vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 October, 2025
1
APHC010441312025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22414/2025
Between:
SMT.KUCHI SOBHA SREE, W/O. P.MADHUSUDHAN, AGED 55 YRS.,
OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. A-101, 6-3-252, GROUND FLOOR, TRENDSET
GRAND APTS., AZAMJAHA, BAHADURNAGAR, HYDERABAD - 82.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT. AMARAVATI.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, I.O., NANDIGAMA
DIVISION, NTR COMMISSIONARATE, VIJAYAWADA.
3. AXIS BANK, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER/NODAL OFFICER,
R.P. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD, T.S.
4. VARUN GANDHI CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS K.VARUN GANDHI
S/O. KONDAIAH, R/O. H.NO. 1-56/2/A, JAWAHAR COLONY, ROAD
NO.3, CHANDANAGAR, R.R DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. R SUDHA RANI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
".... Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned notice U/s.l06 BNSS dated 18-08-2025 2 addressing to the respondent No.3 Bank in relation to freezing of the account of the petitioner bearing No.068010100478311 in relation to Crime No.56/2025 on the file of Suryaraopet P.S., NTR Commissionrate, Vijayawada i.e., respondent No.2 herein as illegal and arbitraryand set aside the same."
2. Heard Ms.Ra.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner herein is the wife of Accused No.2 in Crime No.56 of 2025 on the file of Suryaraopeta Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, however, the Petitioner is not an Accused in the said crime. Learned counsel would further submit that, nothing has been alleged against the Petitioner regarding her involvement in the said crime. It is submitted that, the Petitioner was allotted a plot by The Journalist Co-operative Housing Society Limited under a Sale Deed dated 05.03.2004. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is holding a personal account with Respondent No.3 - Bank. In order to construct a house in the said plot, the Petitioner availed housing loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- out of which, an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was disbursed. The first disbursement of Rs.60,00,000/- was paid to the builder on 20.03.2025 i.e., Varun Gandhi Constructions, who has been constructing the house of the Petitioner, and an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid towards second installment on 13.06.2025. An amount of Rs.31,65,648.13 ps is lying with the bank in the account of the Petitioner.
3
Learned counsel would further submit that, suspecting certain suspicious entries in the account of the Petitioner with regard to the above crime, Respondent No.2 had issued a notice under Section 106 BNSS directing Respondent No.3 - Bank to freeze the account of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that, due to the freezing of the account of the Petitioner, the further payments to the builder of the Petitioner have been stalled. It is submitted that the amount lying in the bank account of the Petitioner is the loan amount, which she availed from Respondent No.3 - Bank and the same is not connected with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has to pay the balance amount to the builder under Agreement dated 04.01.2025, which is lying in her Account. Learned counsel would submit that, let there be a direction to the bank to permit the Petitioner to operate her account.
4. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Petitioner and her husband, who is Accused No.2 in the said crime, are the Directors of Camsign Media Private Limited. Accused No.2 in the capacity of Director, dealt with APPSC officials for the manual evaluation work. The work order was issued in the name of APPSC Secretary, but executed through Camsign Media Private Limited to which the Petitioner was also a Director. It is further submitted that, an amount of Rs.1,14,32,312/- was credited by APPSC into the Canara Bank account of Camsign Media Private Limited which was operated under the directorship of Petitioner and her husband. The payments and transactions 4 were routed through the said Company. It is further submitted that the subject account of the Petitioner is also linked to the financial transactions of M/s.Camsign Media Private Limited through which the funds connected with Crime No.56 of 2025 were routed.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner is not an Accused in Crime No.56 of 2025. Admittedly, while the Petitioner was working as a Journalist, she was allotted Plot No.308 admeasuring 264.35 square yards by The Journalists' Co-operative Housing Society Limited under a Sale Deed dated 05.03.2004 vide Document No.2454 / 2004. The material placed on record would show that the Petitioner entered into an Agreement for Construction of House in the said plot with Respondent No.4 agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,86,000/-. As seen from the Home Loan Summary, the Petitioner was sanctioned loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was disbursed on 20.03.2025 and Rs.50,00,000/- was disbursed on 13.06.2025 and an amount of Rs.31,65,648.13 ps is lying with the bank in the account of the Petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, Respondent - Police has issued the impugned notice dated 18.08.2025 under Section 106 of BNSS directing Respondent No.3 - Bank to freeze the bank accounts of the Petitioner as well as her husband alleging some suspicious transactions in their accounts in connection with Crime No.56 of 2025 on the file of Suryaraopeta Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada. In view of the said notice, the loan account of the Petitioner has been freezed.
5
7. It is the contention of the Petitioner that she is no way connected with the alleged crime and due to the freezing of her loan account, without there being any nexus with the alleged crime, the Petitioner is unable to pay the balance amount to the builder of her house as agreed under the Agreement dated 04.01.2025. Under the guise of investigation, order of freezing the account of the Petitioner, who is not an Accused, cannot be passed.
8. Considering the submissions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondent No.3 - Bank to defreeze the account of the Petitioner, if the amount lying in the said account is relating to the loan amount as contended by the Petitioner. However, it is clarified that if there are any other independent freeze orders received by Respondent No.3 unrelating to this incident, they will be at liberty to continue the freeze for such amounts. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.10.2025 Dinesh 6 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.22414 of 2025 Dt.09.10.2025 Dinesh