IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 37835 OF 2025

05.03.2026 Between:

Tushar Prakash Ajwani .. Petitioner And The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Ministry, New Delhi & another ..Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner states that he was born and brought up in India and his parents are presently residing in the State of Maharashtra. He pursued his education in India and acquired a Master of Business Administration degree; thereafter, he received employment opportunities in the United States of America, migrated to the United States, and subsequently acquired citizenship of the United States of America. It is stated, he is presently employed in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and shifted to Dubai for the purpose of his employment. He runs a business consultancy firm providing services to foreign companies and individuals in relation to payment gateways, currency conversion, and other allied professional services.

1.1. Petitioner states that he has been providing consultancy services since November, 2022 and is also engaged in trading activities. In the course of his business activities, he was approached by a company namely "Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd." registered in Mumbai which requested him to facilitate payment gateways and related communication and IT setups with various payment platforms including PayTM, PayPal and PhonePe. His relationship with Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. was purely professional in nature and that he was not part and parcel of the company, nor was he involved in its management or day-to-day affairs. He had no role in the activities of the company apart from rendering professional consultancy services. It is further contended, he received monies from the said company strictly towards professional services rendered by him.

1.2. Petitioner states that during April, 2023, one of the Directors of Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. informed that the company's bank account had been frozen and requested him to verify the same. Upon verification, he was informed that Cyber Crime Station, Girgaon, Mumbai had issued instructions leading to freezing of the account and that he was required to take up the issue with the Cyber Crime Station. He immediately visited the Cyber Crime Station, Mumbai and inquired about the reasons for freezing of the company's bank account. Petitioner contends that during such visit, he was questioned regarding his role in the company, to which he clarified that he was only a consultant rendering services and he had been requested by the Director to verify the freezing of the bank account. He furnished all the details relating to the company, including details of its Directors and other related information, and fully cooperated with the inquiry.

1.3. Petitioner states that after two days, he was once again called to the police station and questioned further. He once again informed the authorities of all relevant facts and fully cooperated with the investigation. After questioning and recording of information, police informed him that they were placing him under arrest in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2023 wherein he was arrayed as Accused No. 6. He approached the trial court and obtained bail. Petitioner further states that he subsequently came to know that another crime bearing No. 104 of 2023 had also been registered against certain persons including himself and that in the said case also, he was granted bail. When the company's account was frozen, he filed an Application seeking defreezing of the bank account and that the learned Judge granted an order defreezing the same. In all the orders passed by the learned Judges, it was opined that there was no monetary benefit derived by him in the alleged crimes and that he had not made any money.

1.4. It is contended, petitioner received summons from the 2^nd Respondent dated 14.05.2025 requiring him to appear on 04.06.2025; he immediately informed the 2nd Respondent that he was no