ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner states that he has been engaged for a considerable period in the business of sale of products on line, categorised as on line AMC services. For the purpose of carrying on his business transactions, he opened a current account bearing No.5608873312 with Respondent No.4 bank. The said account was being operated smoothly for business purposes. The income derived from the said business is the sole source of livelihood for petitioner and his family and he is the only earning member of the family. 1.1. It is stated, on and from 26-09-2024, Respondent No.4 bank abruptly stopped permitting transactions in the said current account and blocked the account. When petitioner personally approached Respondent No.4 bank, it is stated, he was informed that account had been frozen pursuant to the instructions received from Respondents 2 and 3, but no written order, reasons, or further details were furnished to him at that time. 1.2. Petitioner states that subsequently he received communications through post from Respondents 2 to 4, which contained the notice dated 02-09-2024 issued by the Inspector of Police, One Town Police Station, Siddipet, under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, addressed to Respondents 2 to 4 and another notice of the same date issued under Section 94 directed to be served on petitioner. Under the said notices, petitioner was called upon to appear before the police along with documents relating to his identity and documents pertaining to the bank account and transactions, in connection with an alleged cyber crime investigation. It is stated further, the said notices do not disclose registration of any FIR, nor do they mention any crime number. In the notice addressed to Respondent No.4 bank, it was stated, during the investigation, it was revealed that fraudulently disputed money was deposited into petitioner’s current account. 1.3. Petitioner states, he was unaware of and in fact, shocked to know the credit of Rs.5,000/- into his bank account vide UTR No.426568642074 dated 21-09-2024; he was informed by Respondent No.4 bank that they had already furnished the required information to the police authorities. He was further informed, a lien would be held on the said amount of Rs.5,000/- and that he would be permitted to operate the account with respect to his own funds after obtaining clearance from Respondents 2, 3 and 5. He was further informed, a lien would be held on the said amount of Rs.5,000/- and that he would be permitted to operate the account with respect to his own funds after obtaining clearance from Respondents 2, 3 and 5. However, despite repeated visits, petitioner was not permitted to operate the account. He therefore, is said to have addressed written representation dated 02-04-2025 to Respondent No.4 bank seeking de-freezing of his account. In response, Respondent No.4 sent an email dated 11-04-2025 stating that the amount in petitioner’s account was marked as “freezed” pursuant to a notice received from Respondent No.5. Even thereafter, no relief was granted, compelling petitioner to approach this Court. 1.4. According to petitioner, Respondents 2 to 4 could have lawfully restricted the specific amount of Rs.5,000/- allegedly involved in the case and permitted him to operate the remaining funds in the account, instead, the entire account was frozen. Petitioner asserts that Respondent No.5 has no authority to direct Respondent No.4 bank to freeze the entire account without furnishing case details, without reference to any FIR or crime number, and without following due procedure. Petitioner contends that notices issued under Sections 94 and 106 of BNSS do not direct Respondent No.4 to freeze his account; the notices only require service of notice on petitioner and furnishing of identity and bank-related documents. Therefore, the act of Respondents 2 to 4 in freezing the entire bank account is illegal and the explanation given by Respondent No.4 bank in its e mail dated 11-04-2025 is incorrect and unsustainable. 2. Respondent No.4 bank filed counter stating that petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands and by suppressing material facts. It is contended that the allegation of arbitrary action and freezing of the account without notice is incorrect as notice dated 02-09-2024 was sent on 05-10-2024 through speed post to the recorded address furnished by him at the time of opening the account with the Bank and the said notice was returned as ‘unclaimed’. It is also stated, petitioner opened a deposit account bearing No.5608873312 at Noorkhan Bazaar Branch of Central Bank of India on 05-06-2024 by submitting KYC documents along with the account opening form. It was subsequently noticed by the Bank’s IT Office at the backend that more than 1000 entries per day were being made in the said account, involving deposits ranging from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from various accounts. It was subsequently noticed by the Bank’s IT Office at the backend that more than 1000 entries per day were being made in the said account, involving deposits ranging from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from various accounts. As per RBI norms, the bank suspected the said account to be a mule account. Accordingly, notices were issued to the recorded address of the account holder, which were returned unclaimed. 2.1. It is stated, on 01-11-2025, the Branch Manager along with one more officer of the branch visited the address provided by petitioner through e mail and also the address mentioned in the Writ Petition, for the purpose of verifying the existence of the business unit and to ascertain whether the account was KYC compliant. During the inspection, it was found that neither petitioner nor the stated business unit was in existence at the recorded address. Instead, another business unit by name Global Enterprises was found operating at the said location. Photographs with geo-tagging were taken and an inspection report was prepared as per the bank’s prescribed format. 2.2. It is also stated, based on the inspection, it was concluded that account was not KYC compliant and a report to that effect was submitted. As a Public Sector Undertaking bank, this respondent asserts that it cannot permit operation of the account in violation of RBI guidelines; continuation of operations in a non-KYC compliant account is impermissible, as allowing such operation may expose the bank to liability in the event the account is found to be involved in cyber crimes or money laundering. It is stated that investigating authorities and the Reserve Bank of India would hold the bank accountable for such lapses. Accordingly, it is prayed that Writ petition with costs. 2.3. It is also stated, on perusal of Udyam Registration Certificate dated 29-04-2024 bearing No. UDYAM-TS-02- 062704, it is revealed that petitioner is shown as carrying on cosmetics trading, wholesale toiletry and perfumery business at House No.16-2-689/1, however, in the Writ Petition, business address was mentioned as a shop situated at 16-1-26/A/A, Main Road, Saidabad, Hyderabad-500059. These two addresses are not one and the same, thereby raising doubts regarding the genuineness of petitioner’s business and address particulars. It is also stated, there is no mention of any specific disputed amount in the notice dated 02-09-2024 received by the respondent bank from Siddipet Police Station Cyber Crime. These two addresses are not one and the same, thereby raising doubts regarding the genuineness of petitioner’s business and address particulars. It is also stated, there is no mention of any specific disputed amount in the notice dated 02-09-2024 received by the respondent bank from Siddipet Police Station Cyber Crime. Even the same notice, as filed along with Writ Petition, does not disclose any disputed amount of Rs.5,000/-, hence, it is contended, petitioner is misrepresenting the facts alleging that a disputed amount of Rs.5,000/- is involved. 2.4. In the absence of proper representation of factual position from Respondent No.5, permitting operation of the account, at this stage, may result in perpetuation of cyber crimes and may also amount to violation of directions issued by the police authorities to the bank. Further, petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate or prove the business allegedly carried on by him and he has also not disclosed subsequent developments, nor has he obtained or produced any No Objection Certificate from the police station concerned for operation of the bank account. 2.5. This respondent further states that an alert notification issued by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, is enclosed; the Ministry of Home Affairs is taking nationwide steps to create a Cyber Secure Bharat; nation-wide raids conducted by Gujarat Police and Andhra Pradesh Police have revealed that transnational organized cyber criminals have created illegal digital payment gateways using mule or rented bank accounts. These illegal infrastructures are used for facilitating money laundering as a service, involving proceeds of various cyber crimes. In view of the said alert notification and subsequent bank guidelines, strict personal verification of such accounts is mandatory. Only if the account is found to be genuine and fully compliant with KYC norms, can the bank permit operation of the account. In the present case, since the account of petitioner has been found to be non-compliant and suspicious, this respondent contends that permitting operation of the account would be contrary to RBI guidelines, police directions, and national cyber security measures. 3. Heard Sri Syam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Angothu Nehru, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, Sri I. Laxmikanth Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank and learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of Respondent No.5. 4. 3. Heard Sri Syam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Angothu Nehru, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, Sri I. Laxmikanth Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank and learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of Respondent No.5. 4. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings of both the parties and the material placed on record, it is to be seen, petitioner’s account was suspected by the bank as ‘Mule Account’, based on abnormal transactions involving more than 1000 entries per day with multiple deposits from various accounts. Hence, the bank sent notices to the recorded address of petitioner which were returned unclaimed. During the inspection conducted on 01-11-2025, the Branch Manager found that petitioner’s business unit was not existing at the given address and some other business unit namely Global Enterprises was being run in the said premises. These facts have not been effectively rebutted by petitioner. Further, the Branch Manager has in clear and categorical terms stated that account of petitioner is not KYC compliant, hence, as a public- sector undertaking, they cannot allow the operation of the account as per RBI guidelines. It is also their case that, without proper KYC, if the account is allowed to be operated and subsequently, the account is found to be involved in cyber crimes/money laundering, the Investigating Authorities and RBI will make the bank liable for all the consequences. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that a bank, particularly a Public Sector Undertaking, is bound by RBI guidelines, statutory obligations, and directions of investigating agencies. In cases where an account is suspected to be a mule account and is found to be non-KYC compliant, the bank is justified in restricting operations to prevent possible misuse, cyber crime, or money laundering. The principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to compel a bank to permit operation of an account which is prima facie found to be suspicious and non-compliant with mandatory regulatory norms. 5. Further, petitioner has not placed any material to establish that he complied with the notice dated 02.09.2025; that after receipt of the said notice, he visited Siddipet Police Station and informed about the developments in this regard nor could he obtained clearance or No Objection for operation of the account. 5. Further, petitioner has not placed any material to establish that he complied with the notice dated 02.09.2025; that after receipt of the said notice, he visited Siddipet Police Station and informed about the developments in this regard nor could he obtained clearance or No Objection for operation of the account. He also failed to explain the discrepancies in business address and absence of proof of genuine business activity which would weaken his case. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court holds that petitioner failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relief sought by petitioner, if granted, would expose the respondent bank to regulatory and legal consequences and would run contrary to RBI guidelines and national cyber security measures. This Court therefore, is of the opinion that the Writ Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 8. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.