1 2026:CGHC:22113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1461 of 2026 1 - Plasmid Digital Solutions Through Its Proprietor Shivom Yadav S/o Ram- Lal Yadav Age- 26 Years, Occupation- Office At- Regus, 306, 3rd Floor, Magneto Mall, Raipur, C.G. 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager, Jai-Stambh Chowk, Main Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Cyber Police Station Bangarmau, Allampur Retwa, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh 209868 ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Jay Sarkar, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Anurag Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondent No.1 Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Jai- Stambh Chowk, Main Branch, Raipur, to forthwith de-freeze/remove the debit freeze/stop placed on the Petitioner's Current Account No. 42630384099 at State Bank of India, Jai-Stambh Chowk, Main Branch, Raipur and allow the Petitioner to operate the said account in the normal course of business; 10.3 Direct the Respondent No.1 Bank to release the amount lying in the Petitioner's aforesaid bank account, including the amount kept on hold, which has been frozen Without any lawful justification; 3 10.4 Declare the action of the Respondent No.1 Bank in freezing the Petitioner's bank account without providing any prior notice, opportunity of hearing, or lawful order as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India; 10.5 Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm namely “Plasmid Digital Solutions”, based at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, engaged in the business of performance marketing and digital advertisement services. According to the petitioner, the firm provides online advertising and marketing services through various digital platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Google and caters to clients across India. The present petition has been filed through its proprietor namely Shivom Yadav. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner maintains a current account with respondent No. 1 – State Bank of India, Jai Stambh Chowk Main Branch, Raipur. According to the petitioner, on 20.08.2025, an email communication was received from respondent No. 1 Bank intimating that a hold of Rs. 5,000/- had been created in the petitioner’s account. Thereafter, upon inquiry being made with the 4 concerned Relationship Manager of the Bank, the petitioner was allegedly assured that the said hold would shortly be removed. The petitioner has further stated that despite waiting for considerable time, the hold was not removed and subsequently on 14.01.2026, the petitioner received a text message from respondent No. 1 Bank intimating that a “STOP” had been placed on the petitioner’s bank account. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed an email dated 15.01.2026 to respondent No. 1 Bank seeking clarification regarding freezing of the account. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 Bank thereafter informed the petitioner through email communication that the hold/freezing had been marked on account of a cyber complaint and the petitioner was advised to contact the concerned police authorities. Along with the said communication, a copy of Complaint Acknowledgment No. 23108250121710 registered before Cyber Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh was also supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has further averred that upon perusal of the complaint, it was found that the petitioner’s account had been reflected merely as a “Layer-2” account in relation to an amount of Rs.20,000/- credited on 22.07.2025 and the disputed amount reflected therein was only Rs.5,000/-. According to the petitioner, the amount received from the company namely Infinix Infotech was a legitimate business payment against marketing and promotional services rendered by 5 the petitioner to the said company and the amount was received pursuant to Invoice No. 2507004 dated 08.07.2025. The petitioner has also stated that due to freezing of the account, the day-to-day business operations of the petitioner have been seriously affected and the petitioner is unable to meet financial obligations including payment of salaries to employees and other business liabilities. Being aggrieved by the freezing of the account, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither named as an accused in the cyber complaint nor any criminal liability has been attributed to the petitioner till date. It is contended that the petitioner is only reflected as a “Layer-2” account holder and the amount credited in the petitioner’s account was a genuine business transaction made against digital marketing services rendered by the petitioner firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that freezing of the entire bank account without affording any opportunity of hearing and without passing any reasoned order is wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that only a disputed amount of Rs.5,000/- is reflected in the cyber complaint, however, the entire account of the petitioner has been frozen thereby paralyzing the business operations of the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore prays that 6 the respondent authorities be directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 – State Bank of India submits that the account of the petitioner was frozen pursuant to communication/instructions received from the concerned Cyber Police authorities in connection with the cyber complaint registered in the matter. It is further submitted that the Bank has acted strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the competent authorities. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submits that insofar as the disputed amount is concerned, the respondent Bank has no objection if the same is retained/held in the account till completion of inquiry/investigation by the competent authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner is required to cooperate with the investigating authorities whenever called upon to do so. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings and documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner’s account was frozen on account of a cyber complaint registered before the concerned Cyber Police authorities and the disputed amount reflected in the complaint is stated to be Rs.5,000/-. It further appears that according to the petitioner, the amount received in the account pertains to a 7 legitimate business transaction carried out by the petitioner in the ordinary course of business. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and particularly considering the fact that continued freezing of the entire account is adversely affecting the day-to-day business operations of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 1 – State Bank of India to de-freeze the account of the petitioner while holding the disputed amount in question, subject to further orders/directions of the competent authority. 8. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the authorities concerned and whenever called upon for the purposes of inquiry/investigation, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned authorities and extend full cooperation in the proceedings. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations involved in the cyber complaint and the competent authorities shall proceed independently in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge