1 CGHC010129792026 2026:CGHC:30032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1602 of 2026 Anjani Traders & Services Through Pro. Jaiprakash Kashyap, S/o Shri Navmi Ram Kashyap, Aged 44 Years, R/o Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, Civic Center, Dist- Durg (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Director General Of Police, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (CG) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg (CG) 3 - State Of Karnataka Through Director General Of Police, Office Of Cyber Crime, Malleshwaram, Bangluru, Karnataka, Pin Code 560012 4 - Branch Manager City Union Bank, Branch Bhilai, District Durg (CG) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mohd. Sohail Khan, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.17 10:58:04 +0530 2 “10.1 that the Hon'ble court may direct to Respondent no.4 for release of petitioner Current account no. 510909010239229 Linked with mobile no. 99815-08230, which is hold in subject in complaint no. 31608250104011 filed by the Chandrappagari Shashikumar Mobile no. 91609-88620, R/o Karnataka Bangalore City Channammanakere Achukattu on dated 18.08.2025. 10.2 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in circumstances of this case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the proprietor of Anjani Trading & Services, a registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME), and is carrying on business through Current Account No. 510909010239229 maintained with respondent No.3-Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.18,695.56/- was credited to his account by an unknown person, pursuant to which a cyber fraud complaint alleging an online UPI fraud was lodged before the Cyber Cell, Karnataka. On the basis of the information received from the Cyber Crime authorities, the petitioner's current account came to be frozen by the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner, the disputed amount has already been refunded to the complainant and the cyber complaint has subsequently been closed; however, despite closure of the complaint, the petitioner's bank account continues to remain frozen, thereby causing serious prejudice to his business activities. Aggrieved by the continued 3 freezing of his account, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to de-freeze his current account. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged cyber fraud and that the amount of Rs.18,695.56/- was credited into the petitioner's account by an unknown person without his knowledge. It is submitted that solely on the basis of information transmitted by the Cyber Cell through respondent No.3-Bank to the concerned authorities, the petitioner's current account linked with his mobile number came to be frozen by respondent No.4. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a bona fide businessman and the freezing of his only business current account has completely paralysed his commercial activities, resulting in grave financial hardship. It is further submitted that since the disputed amount has already been restored to the complainant and the complaint itself stands closed, there remains no justification for continuing the freezing of the petitioner's account. Learned counsel further assures this Court that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigating agency and, whenever called upon by the competent authority, shall appear before it and furnish all necessary documents, identification particulars, current mobile number, residential address and such security or undertaking as may be required during the course of 4 investigation. On these submissions, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account. 4. Though respondent No.4-Bank was duly served with notice, none has entered appearance on its behalf despite service. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's bank account was frozen pursuant to information received through the Cyber Crime authorities of the State of Karnataka in connection with a cyber fraud complaint registered therein. It is submitted that the action of freezing the account was taken in compliance with the communication received from the competent authority during the course of investigation and, therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the respondent authorities. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. From the material placed before this Court, it appears that an online cyber fraud complaint was registered before the Cyber Crime authorities of the State of Karnataka, pursuant to which information was transmitted to the concerned authorities resulting in freezing of the petitioner's bank account. It also appears from the documents brought on record that the disputed transaction pertains to an amount of Rs.18,695.56/- and that the said amount has already been credited back to the complainant. The petitioner 5 has also expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigating agency at every stage of the proceedings. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the disputed amount is only Rs.18,695.56/-, that the freezing of the petitioner's current account is seriously affecting his business activities, and that the petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by directing de-freezing of the petitioner's account while protecting the interest of the investigating agency. 9. Accordingly, respondent No.4-Bank is directed to de-freeze the petitioner's Current Account No. 510909010239229 forthwith, however, the amount in dispute, i.e., Rs.18,695.56/-, shall continue to remain under lien/retention, if so required in accordance with law, till completion of the investigation or until any further order passed by the competent authority. 10. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating agency in all respects and shall furnish to respondent No.2/concerned Investigating Authority his current mobile number, complete residential address, proof of identity and any other particulars as may be required. The petitioner shall also execute a personal bond before respondent No.2 to the effect that whenever his presence is required during the course of investigation or any inquiry, he shall appear before the competent authority without fail 6 upon receipt of notice. It is made clear that in the event of non- cooperation on the part of the petitioner or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh