IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1078 of 2026 SHUBHAM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arshad Ahmed Mansoori - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4 (Bank of Maharastra, Godha Colony Branch) to segregate ‘the disputed amount of Rs.500 into a fixed deposit subject to the investigation outcome and to immediately release and permit the petitioner to operate the remaining funds in bank account No: 60526125346 without any hindrance;

b) Direct Respondent No. 3 (Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station) to complete all legal proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a stipulated time frame failing which, direct the release of the disputed sum of Rs.500 to the petitioner;

c) Pass a direction restraining Respondents from arbitrarily freezing entire bank ‘accounts on account of alleged minor suspicious transactions without obtaining prior judicial approval d) Issue such further or other orders as this Hon’ble. Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity."

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 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 o