Rajesh Patidar vs Bank Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
1 WP-43403-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43403 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020417482026
RAJESH PATIDAR
Versus
BANK OF INDIA AND ANR
Appearance:
Ms. Diksha Shrivas - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Praneesha Nayyar Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"6. RELIEF SOUGHT
i. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the action
of Respondent No.1 in freezing the petitioner’s Savings Bank
Account No. 884910110000173, IFSC: BKID0008849 and direct
immediate
restoration of full operational rights over the account; Declare that
the impugned freezing is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles
14, 19(1), and 21 of the Constitution of India;
ii. Direct the Respondents to furnish to the Petitioner copies of all
complaints/orders on the basis of which the account was frozen;
iii. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice.
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
Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others passed in W.P.
No.1100 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
2 WP-43403-2026
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
3 WP-43403-2026
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."
4 . It is further pointed out that after the judgment passed in the case of
Malcolm Murayis (supra), Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is framed by the
Government for the banks and such issue has been dealt with by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
4 WP-43403-2026
in the case of Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others .

Para 11 to 18 of the said order is reproduced below for convenience and
ready reference:
11. While dictating the present order, this Court has come across the
Standard Operating Procedure dated 10.04.2026 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, governing the Grievance Redressal
Mechanism in respect of bank accounts put on hold through the NCRP-
CFCFRMS. The SOP prescribes a structured procedure, along with specific
timelines and responsibilities for Banks, Investigating Officers, District
Grievance Redressal Officers and Law Enforcement Agencies to ensure prompt
consideration of grievances arising out of freezing of bank accounts in cyber
crime cases.
12. The issue involved in the present petition is not confined to the petitioner
alone. Numerous account holders across the country face freezing of entire
bank accounts even where the allegedly suspicious amount constitutes only a
small fraction of the balance. Simultaneously, law enforcement agencies are
duty bound to preserve proceeds of cyber crime and ensure effective
investigation. Therefore, a balance has to be maintained between the
constitutional right of a citizen to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), the
right to property under Article 300-A, and the statutory powers of investigation.
13. The various High Courts have repeatedly held that while police authorities
possess the power to prohibit operation of bank accounts during investigation,
such power is required to be exercised reasonably, proportionately and only to
the extent necessary for securing the suspected proceeds of crime. Freezing of
an entire account containing legitimate funds merely because a negligible
amount is suspected requires careful scrutiny and must satisfy the test of
proportionality. The SOP dated 10.04.2026 itself recognizes the need for an
effective grievance redressal mechanism and provides strict timelines for
examination of complaints seeking release of bank accounts.
14. This Court observes that, under the SOP dated 10.04.2026, the Bank acts
as the first point of contact and the primary facilitator for an account holder
whose account has been put on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS mechanism.
Therefore, the Bank shall not evade its responsibility by merely directing the
customer to approach the Investigating Agency or any other authority. The
Bank shall promptly provide the account holder with complete information
regarding the available grievance redressal mechanism and shall assist in
initiating the grievance process in accordance with the SOP. It has been noticed
that, in several cases, account holders are required to approach the police
authorities directly, and thereafter are advised to seek appropriate orders from
the Court for de-freezing of the account, despite the existence of a specific
statutory and administrative grievance redressal mechanism. Such an approach
defeats the very purpose of the SOP and causes unnecessary hardship to account
holders. The Banks, being an integral part of the NCRP-CFCFRMS framework,
are required to discharge their obligations responsibly and ensure that
grievances are processed through the prescribed mechanism before directing
the account holder to seek judicial intervention.
15. In order to ensure uniform implementation of the SOP and to protect both
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
5 WP-43403-2026
investigation and legitimate banking operations, this Court considers it
appropriate to frame the following guidelines which shall govern cases relating
to freezing of bank accounts pursuant to cyber crime complaints, until
appropriate statutory rules or executive instructions are framed. Since this Court
is presently proceeding only to lay down general guidelines governing such
cases and no adverse order affecting the rights or interests of respondent Nos.2
and 3 is being passed, no prejudice is likely to be caused to them. Accordingly,
this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 and
3 before framing the said guidelines.
(I) Upon receipt of a complaint relating to cyber fraud, if the Investigating
Agency considers it necessary to secure the suspected proceeds of crime, it
shall, as far as practicable, identify the disputed amount and direct the Bank to
place a lien or debit freeze only to the extent of such amount. Although the
police possess the power to prohibit the operation of bank accounts during
investigation, such power must be exercised reasonably, fairly and in
accordance with the doctrine of proportionality, and only to the extent necessary
for securing the suspected proceeds of crime. Freezing of the entire bank
account shall be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances where the
Investigating Officer, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that a
lien or partial freeze would not adequately safeguard the investigation.
Ordinarily, where the disputed amount can be sufficiently secured by placing a
lien or debit freeze, the Investigating Agency shall refrain from directing the
freezing of the entire account, as such action unnecessarily impedes lawful
financial transactions and may cause serious prejudice to the personal,
professional and business activities of the account holder.
(II). The Investigating Officer shall forthwith inform the concerned
Magistrate regarding the seizure/freezing of the bank account in accordance
with law. The expression “forthwith” shall be construed to mean “as soon as
reasonably possible”, requiring the Investigating Officer to communicate such
information without unnecessary delay and within a reasonable time having
regard to the circumstances of the case. The intimation shall not be postponed
for any avoidable reason and shall ensure effective judicial oversight over the
exercise of such power.
(III). Upon receiving instructions from any law enforcement agency for
freezing or placing a hold on an account, the bank shall immediately preserve
the account in accordance with law. The bank shall maintain complete
electronic records showing:
(a) date and time of receipt of instructions;
(b) authority issuing the instructions;
(c) NCRP complaint number;
(d) FIR, if any;
(e) amount directed to be held.
(IV). Wherever the investigating agency has identified only a specific
suspected amount, the bank should, as far as practicable and unless specifically
directed otherwise by a competent authority or Court, place lien or debit freeze
only to the extent of the suspected amount instead of freezing the entire
account.
(V). Where a bank account is frozen, the concerned Bank shall, without
undue delay, inform the account holder of the fact of such freezing, the
authority under whose directions the action has been taken, and the available
grievance mechanism unless such disclosure is expressly prohibited by law or is

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
6 WP-43403-2026
likely to seriously prejudice the investigation.
(VI). Immediately upon learning of the freezing, the account holder may
submit a grievance before the concerned bank branch together with:
(a) identity proof;
(b) KYC documents;
(c) explanation regarding the disputed transaction;
(d) supporting documents showing source of funds;
(e) business records, invoices, GST records, income tax records or any
other relevant documents.
The account holder shall furnish all documents honestly and shall not
destroy, conceal or alter electronic records.
(VII). The account holder shall cooperate with the Bank in the process of
Customer Due Diligence (CDD), including verification of identity, KYC
particulars and ownership of the account, and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD),
wherever required, by furnishing documents and information relating to the
source of funds, nature of transactions, purpose of the account, and any other
material necessary for verification of the legitimacy of the transactions under
investigation.
(VIII). Upon receipt of a grievance, the bank shall:
(a) conduct CDD and EDD;
(b) examine documents;
(c) upload the grievance on the CFCFRMS portal within seven
calendar days.
(IX). Banks shall nominate grievance officers at branch, State and central
levels in accordance with the SOP.
(X). Banks shall not insist upon unnecessary documentation beyond
regulatory requirements.
(XI). The Investigating Officer shall promptly examine every grievance
uploaded on the portal. Verification shall ordinarily be conducted through
electronic means or video conferencing. Wherever feasible, the account holder
shall participate in verification through video conferencing. Personal
appearance before the Investigating Officer shall ordinarily not be insisted upon
unless:
(a) an FIR/e-FIR has been registered;
(b) such appearance is indispensable for investigation; and
(c) reasons are recorded.
(XII). The Investigating Officer shall assess:
(a) source of funds;
(b) nature of business;
(c) banking pattern;
(d) nexus between the disputed transaction and alleged offence.
(XIII). Wherever the disputed amount is clearly identifiable, the
Investigating Officer shall consider whether preservation of only such amount
would sufficiently protect the investigation instead of continuing a freeze on the
entire account.
(XIV). A reasoned decision shall be passed within fifteen calendar days.
(XV). If the grievance is accepted, release instructions shall immediately be
issued electronically to the concerned bank.
(XVI). The bank shall comply with release instructions issued by the
Investigating Officer or competent authority immediately. preferably within
forty-eight hours and update the CFCFRMS portal.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
7 WP-43403-2026
(XVII). Every communication received from law enforcement shall be
digitally preserved. Banks shall maintain an audit trail of every debit freeze,
lien, release and modification.
(XVIII). If grievance is rejected, detailed reasons shall be recorded on the
portal.
(XIX). Mere suspicion without supporting material shall not justify indefinite
continuation of freezing. If continuation of freezing is necessary, the
Investigating Officer shall periodically review whether such continuation
remains proportionate.
(XX). The Investigating Officer shall avoid unnecessary disruption of
legitimate business activities where the objectives of investigation can be
achieved through less restrictive measures.
(XXI). If the account holder is dissatisfied with the decision of the
Investigating Officer, the account holder may seek review before the District
Grievance Redressal Officer through the designated bank branch within the
period prescribed in the SOP.
(XXII). The District Grievance Redressal Officer shall independently
examine:
(a) the grievance;
(b) documents;
(c) reasons recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(XXIII). The officer may seek additional information from:
(a) the bank;
(b) the complainant;
(c) the Investigating Officer.
(XIV). A reasoned decision shall be uploaded within fifteen days. The
District Grievance Redressal Officer shall ensure strict adherence to the
timelines prescribed in the SOP.
(XV). Every grievance remaining undecided beyond fifteen days before the
investigating officer or Bank shall automatically stand escalated to District
Grievance Redressal Officer appointed under the SOP.
(XVI). Where a grievance challenging the freezing or hold of a bank account
remains unresolved for a period of 90 days from the date of its registration by
the Bank, and no lawful direction for continuation of the hold has been received
from the competent Law Enforcement Agency or any Court, the Bank shall,
upon the request of the account holder and after complying with the
requirements of the SOP, release the hold on the account. However, before
releasing the hold, the Bank shall give at least fifteen days' prior intimation to
the concerned Investigating Agency/Law Enforcement Agency, and if no valid
objection, court order, or request for extension of the hold is received within the
said period, the Bank shall proceed to remove the hold in accordance with law.
(XVII). Where an FIR has been registered and the account holder has been
arrayed as an accused in the said case, and the Investigating Agency, after due
consideration, does not find it appropriate to release or de-freeze the bank
account and communicates such decision in writing to the concerned Bank, the
account holder shall be at liberty to approach the competent Magistrate having
jurisdiction over the concerned police station by filing an appropriate
application seeking necessary relief. Any further remedy, if available in law,
may thereafter be pursued before the High Court having appropriate jurisdiction
in accordance with law.
(XVIII). A writ petition seeking de-freezing or release of a bank account

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
8 WP-43403-2026
ordinarily may be entertained by this Court after expiry of the period of 90 days
prescribed under the SOP dated 10.04.2026, particularly where the Grievance
Redressal Mechanism provided therein has not resulted in any effective
resolution. However, this shall not operate as an absolute bar, and this Court
may exercise its jurisdiction before expiry of the said period in exceptional
circumstances warranting immediate intervention, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Such exceptional situations are not being
exhaustively enumerated herein.
16. This Court further observes that freezing of a bank account is an
extraordinary measure and cannot be resorted to mechanically or as a matter of
routine. The Investigating Agency shall distinguish between the alleged
proceeds of crime and legitimate funds lying in the account and shall ensure
that only such restraint as is necessary for the purposes of investigation is
imposed. Any order directing freezing of a bank account must be supported by
brief reasons so as to enable effective judicial scrutiny, wherever required.
1 7 . The Standard Operating Procedure dated 10.04.2026 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs prescribes a time-bound grievance redressal
mechanism, requiring the Bank to upload the grievance within seven days, the
Investigating Officer to decide the grievance within fifteen days, automatic
escalation thereafter to the District Grievance Redressal Officer, who shall
decide the review within fifteen days, and the Bank to implement release
directions forthwith, preferably within forty-eight hours. All concerned
authorities shall scrupulously adhere to the timelines prescribed in the SOP.
This Court clarifies that the timelines stipulated therein represent the outer
limits for completion of the respective actions and shall not be treated as the
ordinary period available to the authorities. Every endeavour shall be made by
the Bank, the Investigating Officer, the District Grievance Redressal Officer
and all other concerned authorities to act with utmost promptitude and to
complete the process at the earliest possible opportunity, without waiting for
the expiry of the prescribed outer limit, unless prevented by exceptional
circumstances to be recorded in writing.
18. Having regard to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the
alleged suspicious transaction is stated to be only Rs. 980/-; the account balance
exceeds Rs. 2,51,72,192.57/-; the petitioner is carrying on business through the
said current account; and representation dated 18.07.2026 has already been
submitted. Accordingly, respondent No.3 shall examine the petitioner's
representation strictly in accordance with the SOP dated 10.04.2026 and the
guidelines framed herein. If upon verification the Investigating Officer finds
that preservation of only the disputed amount is sufficient for the purposes of
investigation, appropriate directions shall be issued to respondent No.2 Bank to
release the remaining balance while retaining lien over the disputed amount or
such amount as may be found necessary in accordance with law. Needless to
observe, if the Investigating Officer proposes to continue freezing of the entire
account, a reasoned order shall be passed indicating the necessity for such
continuation."

5. On due consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
decision rendered by this Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra) as well as
Archana (supra) shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case also.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-10-2026
19:02:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29436
9 WP-43403-2026

6. Considering the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Malcolm Murayis (supra) and Archana (supra), let the disputed amount which is
mentioned in the present petition i.e. Rs. 20,200/- shall be kept in FD and if any
other complaint is received by the Bank regarding the some other entry, then it is
open for the bank to take appropriate action in accordance with law by keeping in
mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in the case of Archana
(supra). The disputed amount 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 and petitioner be permitted to
operate the account.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

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