M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.
Held
The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaint is received by the bank regarding another entry, the bank is open to take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Government, as discussed in the Archana case. The disputed amount shall be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, as expected from the police agency to proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other applicable law. Failing this, the amount kept in FD may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Gaurav Jewellers, through its proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya, filed a writ petition seeking to defreeze its bank account (Account No. 119384600000263) held with Respondent No. 1, Yes Bank Ltd. The account had been frozen based on an intimation from investigating authorities. The petitioner argued that its case was covered by previous High Court judgments, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (2024) and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2026). These judgments dealt with similar issues of bank accounts being frozen due to allegations of cyber fraud, often without prior notice to the account holder. The petitioner sought to operate its account, with the disputed amount to be kept in fixed deposits pending further orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to direct the defreezing of a bank account frozen by investigating agencies based on allegations of cyber fraud, particularly when the petitioner claims to be unaware of any wrongdoing and has not received prior notice? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 102 of Cr.P.C.) Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, which provide a framework for resolving such disputes. - The freezing of the account was done without notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner is lawfully carrying out its business. - The petitioner seeks to operate its bank account, with the disputed amount to be held in fixed deposits until a clean chit is given or orders are passed by a competent judicial magistrate. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state regarding the petitioner's claim, other than the general context of investigating agencies freezing accounts due to cyber fraud allegations.
Sections Cited
Section 102, Article 226, BNSS
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents / Respondent No. 1 Yes bank to forthwith ‘defreeze/remove the hold/ lien from the Petitioner’s account bearing No. 119384600000263 as mentioned an para 5.2 of the petition (as per Annexure P/ 1) ii) Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice including the cost of this petition.
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 &
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.