Brajesh Gupta vs Governor Reserve Bank Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26513
1 WP-34040-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 34040 of 2026
BRAJESH GUPTA
Versus
GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kulbhushan Yadav and Shri Deependra Singh Bhadoriya, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Niwaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, learned AAG for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"a) That, respondent authority may kindly be directed to
consider the case of petitioner and provided the
documents on which the account of petitioner has been
put on hold forthwith.
b) That, respondent authorities may. kindly be directed
the concerned authorities to formulate and implement a
proper, uniform and strict Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for dealing with bank account
freezes/holds/leans.Under “such .SOP, whenever a
victim or affected account holder approaches the
concerned bank seeking information regarding the
freeze, hold or lien placed on his/her account, the bank
should, to the extent legally permissible, provide the
person with complete and meaningful information,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26513
2 WP-34040-2026
including the “reason for such action, the nature and
extent of the freeze/lien, the authority or agency at
whose instance it was imposed, the relevant
reference/complaint/FIR or case details, and the official
contact details of the concerned authority or
investigating officer who. may be approached for
clarification or further action.
At present, in the absence of such information, an
affected person is often left completely unaware of the
reason for the “restriction and. has no effective means
of knowing whom to approach or what steps to take for
resolving the issue and restoring operation of his/her
account.
A clear and mandatory SOP would ensure transparency,
accountability and procedural fairness, while also
enabling genuine victims and innocent account holders
to promptly approach the appropriate authority and take
necessary steps for resolution of the matter.

c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
may be passed 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
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26513
3 WP-34040-2026
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26513
4 WP-34040-2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26513
5 WP-34040-2026
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. 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26513
6 WP-34040-2026
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
State Bank of India account, City Center Branch, Gwalior of the petitioner
bearing account No.43862831672 shall be unfrozen.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM