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 :
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.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
(i) The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and preliminary investigation, is that certain accused persons, belonging to the same family, created and promoted a cryptocurrency token and induced members of the public to invest money with an assurances of high returns, while allegedly operating a pyramid or multi-level marketing structure.
(iii) The Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, di
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of freezing bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of this provision in the context of the case.
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
