Pradhumn Singh vs Central Bank Of India

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26242
1 WP-27380-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27380 of 2026
PRADHUMN SINGH
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Kori, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"a) To direct the Respondents to forthwith defreeze the
petitioner's Savings Account No. 3523499220 maintained
with the Central Bank of India, Jayendraganj, Lashkar
Branch, Gwalior, with immediate effect and without
imposing any conditions.
b) 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
7:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26242
2 WP-27380-2026
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
7:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26242
3 WP-27380-2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
7:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26242
4 WP-27380-2026
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 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 Central Bank of India account, branch Jayendraganj
Lashkar, Gwalior of the petitioner bearing saving account No.3523499220 shall be
unfrozen.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
7:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26242
5 WP-27380-2026
6. Apart from the above, it has also been pointed out by the learned counsel

for the respondent-Bank that there may be an issue relating to the KYC of the
petitioner. It is hereby made clear that the aforesaid direction shall not be
construed as dispensing with or ignoring the KYC requirements mandated by the
RBI through its guidelines and Master Circulars issued from time to time. In case
the petitioner is required to comply with any KYC requirements, the petitioner
shall do the needful and shall remain present before the concerned officer of the
Bank during the week commencing from 7th September, 2026. In turn, the
concerned officer of the Bank shall ensure that the KYC requirements of the
petitioner are completed within the said week. Upon completion of the requisite
KYC formalities, the Bank shall release the account of the petitioner from the
debit freeze.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
7:51:19 PM