Gopal Yadav vs. Union Bank
Held
The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana would be applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The disputed amount in the petitioner's account shall be kept in a fixed deposit. The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner will be permitted to operate the account. If any other complaint is received by the bank regarding other entries, the bank may take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP. The disputed amount shall be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. It is expected that the police agency will 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 Failing this, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Gopal Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account. He contended that his case was covered by the High Court's previous decision in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others. In that case, petitioners engaged in crypto and virtual currency trading had their bank accounts frozen by banks based on intimations from cyber cells of police stations alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioners in Malcolm Murayis argued they had not received any notice and were carrying out lawful business. The High Court, in Malcolm Murayis, directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits, to be liquidated only after orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, or withdrawn by the petitioner if the police failed to proceed. The present judgment also refers to a subsequent SOP framed by the Government for banks regarding grievance redressal for frozen accounts and a decision in Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen based on cyber cell intimations, should be unfrozen, considering the principles laid down in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026 governing grievance redressal for frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his case is squarely covered by the decision in Malcolm Murayis, which provided relief by directing the disputed amount to be kept in fixed deposits and allowing the petitioner to operate the account. He relied on the principles established in that case for the de-freezing of his account. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state authorities. However, it notes that banks freeze accounts based on instructions from cyber cell police stations and are bound by such directives. The judgment also references the SOP which outlines procedures for investigating agencies and banks.
Sections Cited
Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
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:
"
RELIEF SOUGHT i. That the instant petition may kindly be allowed and to direct the respondent to defreeze the account number 520202010007770 of the petitioner. ii. Issue such other orders, writ and direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice equity and good conscience in favour of petitioner.
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 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.
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.