Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Padmini Meher – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of a cryptocurrency fraud. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's argument against account freezing. (Para 3) |
| 3. state's argument supporting account freezing. (Para 4) |
| 4. examination of the legal matrix. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. right to livelihood and its importance. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. requirement for reasoned judicial orders. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. continuous review of freezing orders necessary. (Para 21) |
| 8. de-freezing conditions set forth. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI, J.
1. Since the issues raised in all the CRLMCs referred to above involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, CRLMC No.2031 of 2025 is treated as the lead case.
2. The present CRLMC petitions arise out of FIR No.04 of 2024 dated 20.01.2024 registered at Cyber Crime and Economic Offences Police Station, Bolangir, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, on the basis of intelligence inputs regarding an alleged cryptocurrency inve
The freezing of a bank account must be justified by reasonable suspicion of crime, and the orders should be reasoned, particularly when impacting fundamental rights such as the right to livelihood.
Freezing an entire bank account without evidence linking the account holder to a crime violates the right to livelihood; only specific amounts should be frozen with proper justification.
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
The court established that a bank account can be frozen under suspicion of criminal activity, and failure to report the freeze to the Magistrate does not invalidate the action.
The freezing of a business account requires identification of the tainted amount to ensure proportionality, and blanket freezes violate constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for freezing bank accounts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, specifically Section 25, is directory in nature....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C and the need for sufficient evidence to support the freezing of a bank acco....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
