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.

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 investment fraud relating to “Dykan Coin”.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(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.

(ii) During investigation, it was found that multiple bank accounts, including the IDFC Bank account of the present petitioner Padmini Meher, were used for receiving funds, and an amount of Rs. 15,85,022/- was credited to her account between October 2023 and January 2024 from various sources including transfers from co-accused persons.

(iii) The Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, directed freezing of several bank accounts including that of the petitioner to prevent further inflow and alleged siphoning of funds, following which the petitioner filed an application for de-freezing before the learned SDJM, Bolangir.

(iv) The learned SDJM, Bolangir, by order dated 01.08.2024, rejected the application for de-freezing, and the said order was affirmed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Criminal Revision No. 8/1 of 2024-25 by order dated 06.03.2025.

(v) Aggrieved by the continued freezing of her bank account and the rejection of her applications by the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking de-freezing of her bank account.

II. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submits that the present petitions are limited in scope and do not challenge the registration of the FIR but only the legality of freezing her bank account, which has been done without following the due procedure prescribed under law and without proper judicial oversight.

(ii) It is contended that the power to freeze bank accounts is not traceable to Section 157 CrPC and, if at all exercised, must be in accordance with Section 102 CrPC, which mandates reporting of such seizure to the Magistrate, a requirement that has not been complied with in the present case.

(iii) The petitioner further argues that the freezing of her account was done solely on the instructions of the Investigating Officer without any independent judicial order, rendering the action illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.

(iv) It is further submitted that the petitioner is not the promoter, director, or key managerial person of the alleged scheme and is merely a family member whose account received certain transfers, whi