Ravi Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Home Department

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29356
1 WP-42972-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 42972 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020413702026
RAVI SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY HOME
DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hariom Parmar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

(1). That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent
No.2/State Bank of India to immediately de-freeze and restore full
access to the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 31859552160 with
SBI, Branch P.Y. Road, Indore (M.P.).
(2) That, in the alternative, if this Hon’ble Court finds that any amount
is required to be retained, the freezing/lien be directed to be confined
only to the disputed amount of Rs 20/- and the petitioner be permitted
to operate the rest of the account.
(3) That, respondent no.1 be directed to ensure that the police/cyber
crime authority concerned discloses the complaint, if any, on the basis
of which the account was frozen, and that any further action in the
matter is taken strictly in accordance with law after giving notice and
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(4) Costs of this petition be awarded to the petitioner.
(5) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29356
2 WP-42972-2026
Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others Malcolm Murayis &

Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others passed in W.P. No.1100 of 2024 dated
26.04.2024.
3. So far as the decision rendered in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra) is
concerned, the same reads as under:-
"1] This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. Nos.1100/2024 and 1185/2024
as in both the petitions identical reliefs have been sought by the parties.
2] These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) This petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
b) To direct the Respondent No. 2 thereby directing Respondents to remove
the hold/freeze on the Bank account of petitioners.
c) Issue such other orders, writ, and direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit
in the interest of justice in favour of petitioner.”
3] The grievance of the petitioners is that they are engaged in trading of crypto and
virtual currency, and having their bank accounts with State Bank of India and ICICI
Bank, which have been freezed all of a sudden, only on the intimation sent by the
cyber cells of the various police stations, viz., respondent Nos.3 to 9, to freeze the
aforesaid account on the allegation that the accounts are involved in some cyber
fraud. The amounts of which have also been disclosed, as to how much of the amount
is credited in the account of the petitioners, which are linked to cyber crime/fraud.
4] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have never received
any notice from any police station regarding their involvement in any such offence,
and even otherwise, they are lawfully carrying out their business of trading, and it
appears that some person who was involved in fraud has transacted through the
petitioners. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to operate their
bank account, and so far as the amount which is said to be credited on account of the
cyber fraud, it is submitted that it may be kept in separate fixed deposits so that the
same can be withdrawn as and when the clean chit is given to the petitioner. Counsel
has also submitted that none of the investigating agencies have complied with
Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and have not informed the concerned Magistrate about such
seizure. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed.
5] Counsel for the respondents Banks have submitted that the Banks have not freezed
the account of the petitioners on their own but only at the instructions of various
cyber cell police stations, and are bound by the instructions issued by such
investigating authorities. Thus, it is submitted that the appropriate orders may be
passed.
6] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7] From the record, it is found that this Court vide its order dated 14/03/2024 has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29356
3 WP-42972-2026
passed an interim order in the following manner:-

“Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
Let notice be issued to respondents No.3 to 9 in WP
No.1100/2024 and respondents No.3 to 6 in WP No.1185/2024
on payment of process fees within three working days,
returnable within further two weeks time, who are various
police authorities and who have sent the requests to the
respondent No.1/SBI to freeze the account of the petitioners,
alleging some cyber crime.
Since the notices have been served on respondent No.1 SBI by
the aforesaid authorities through email only, the notice of this
petition shall also be sent to these authorities through their
respective emails, so as to expedite the matter.
On payment of separate process fees, the petitioners are also
permitted to serve dasti notice to the respondent No.3 ICICI
Bank in WP No.1185/2024, whereas the other respondents shall
be served through emails. Notice shall be returnable within two
weeks time.
Shri Arpit Guru, learned counsel for the SBI is also directed to
apprise the investigating agencies who are respondents No.3 to
9 in WP No.1100/2024 and respondents No.3 to 6 in WP
No.1185/2024 about the court's proceeding today, so that they
can also submit their reply expeditiously.
The respondents are directed to file their reply positively within
further three weeks time.
As an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of
hearing, each of the petitioners shall be allowed to withdraw
Rs.50,000/- per month from their respective accounts.”
(emphasis supplied)
8] In compliance of the aforesaid order, State Bank of India has already sent emails
to the concerned cyber crime cell of various police stations but except the cyber
crime cell of Banglore, Karnataka / respondent No.4 in connected petition W.P.
No.1185/2024, no other police station has taken trouble to respond to the emails sent
to them, which also demonstrates the poor functioning and irresponsible approach of
the said cyber crime cells of various States as on one hand they had sent emails to the
various banks to freeze certain accounts, and on the other hand they are not willing to
respond to the emails sent to them.
9] In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with a
direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them
by various cyber crime agencies, in fixed deposits, which shall be allowed to be
liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate
within three months’ time as it is expected from the cyber crime police to proceed in
accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they
are relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be
withdrawn by the petitioners under intimation to the cyber crime agencies.
10] With the aforesaid direction, the petitions stand disposed of."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29356
4 WP-42972-2026
4. On due consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision

rendered by this Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra) shall be applicable
mutatis mutandis in the present case also.
5. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose off this petition with a
direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 20/- as
informed to it by the crime agencies in fixed deposits, which shall be allowed to
be liquidated only after the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate
within three months’ time as it is expected from the Police agency to proceed in
accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law
on which it is relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FD may also be
allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency.
In the present case also, the bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen.
6 . It is needless to mention that rest of the amount(if any) lying in the
account of the petitioner is not required to be freezed and it be defreezed.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
CC as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02