Prateek Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26443
1 WP-27297-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27297 of 2024
PRATEEK SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashwini Johri - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak- Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1
and 2/ State.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:-
"(7)(i) That, the respondents be directed to unlock andrelease the
bank account of petitioner i.e. AccountNo.35072021289 of SBI
Bank, Regional Office,City Centre Gwalior (M.P.) and the
transaction inthe same including withdrawal and deposits
bepermitted to be carry on by the petitioner alikethe normal
customer.
(ii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted. "
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.
3 . So far as the decision rendered in the case of Malcolm Murayis
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26443
2 WP-27297-2024
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26443
3 WP-27297-2024
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26443
4 WP-27297-2024
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 respondent No.3/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
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. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
VJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:51:47 PM