Aabid Sheikh vs Idfc First Bank

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24737
1 WP-35215-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 35215 of 2026
AABID SHEIKH
Versus
IDFC FIRST BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sanidhya Gupta advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
Respondent No.1 Bank to forthwith defreeze/remove the hold/lien
from the Petitioner's account bearing No.10129738277 as
mentioined in para 4.2 of the petition (as per Annexure P/2).
II. Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble court may deem
just and proper in the interest of justice including the cost of this
petition.
III. Pass any order, that the Hon'ble court may deem fit, in the
interest of justice.
2. From perusal of the record, it is found 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:09:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24737
2 WP-35215-2026
(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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:09:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24737
3 WP-35215-2026
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. 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 him by the crime agencies in fixed deposits, which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:09:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24737
4 WP-35215-2026
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
said bank account(s) of the petitioner as mentioned in the relief clauses 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 of.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:09:34