1 CGHC010244622026 2026:CGHC:31972-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 366 of 2026 Vikram Singh Rana S/o Shri Mohan Singh Rana Aged About 38 Years R/o-H. N. 21 Ward No. 12 Shabri Nagar Sukma Tahsil Sukma District Sukma (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Director Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center (I4C) Ministry Of Home Affairs Government Of India New Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station- Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer Cyber Cell Sukma District Sukma (C.G.) 6 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India Branch Sukma District Sukma (C.G.) 7 - Santosh Bhadoria R/o P.S. Chandan Nagar Pune City (Maharastra) 8 - Mohit Narang S/o Dewan Chand Narang Aged About 38 Years R/o- Rohini P.S. Special Cell (Sb) District Special Cell Delhi (New Delhi) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.F.S.Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms.Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.28 10:55:14 +0530 2 For Respondents No.2 to 5/State For Respondent No.6 : : Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate Mr.P.R.Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.F.S.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 to 5/State and Mr.P.R.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the cyber acknowledgement complaint crime no. 31904240058357 dated 19.04.2024 (P/1) and cyber acknowledgement complaint crime no. 30801260004611 dated 19.01.2026 (P/2) registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal under administrative control of respondent no. 1 at the instance of Respondent no. 7 & 8. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent no. 6 to 3 immediately defreeze and remove the hold/lien if any on the petitioner's bank account No. 30300205721 of State Bank of India Branch Sukma (C.G.) in its entirety. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned cyber complaint acknowledgment. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any order which may be deed fit and proper in favour of petitioner. An affidavit is filed in support of this writ petition.” 3. The petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-II and is presently posted in the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Sukma, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh). The petitioner receives his monthly salary in his Savings Bank Account maintained with the State Bank of India, Sukma Branch, which is also linked to repayment of loan installments and is used for his day-to-day financial transactions. On 22.01.2026, when the petitioner visited the respondent bank to withdraw money, he was informed through a message that his bank account had been frozen and put on hold. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately approached the respondent bank and submitted an application seeking reasons for freezing his account and requesting that the account be de-frozen so that he could operate it for his legitimate financial needs. On the same day, the respondent No. 6 Bank informed the petitioner in writing that the account had been frozen pursuant to the directions of a 4 competent police officer on the basis of a complaint registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), bearing Complaint Case No. 22NCRP882895801/30801260004611. The bank further advised the petitioner to contact the concerned police officer through the mobile number and e-mail address provided, along with the relevant documents, for de-freezing of the account. Acting promptly, the petitioner, on the very same day, forwarded a representation through e-mail to the concerned respondent authority along with copies of his legal identity documents and requested that his bank account be de-frozen. However, despite the said representation and lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, nor has any response been furnished to the petitioner. 4. Due to the continued freezing of his bank account, the petitioner has been deprived of access to his salary and other lawful deposits. Consequently, he is unable to meet his daily household expenses or discharge his financial obligations. Since the account is linked with repayment of loan installments, the installments are not being deducted, exposing the petitioner to penal charges and compelling him to borrow money from his friends and relatives to avoid default. The petitioner is also facing severe personal hardship as his father is suffering from a serious heart ailment requiring immediate medical treatment. Owing to the freezing of his bank account, the petitioner has been rendered financially incapable of arranging treatment in a private hospital and, under 5 compelling circumstances, has admitted his father to the Government Hospital, Sukma. 5. The action of the respondent authorities in freezing the petitioner's entire bank account has been taken without issuing any notice, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). To the best of the petitioner's knowledge and belief, no First Information Report has been registered against him, nor has he been implicated in any criminal case. Even assuming, without admitting, that any complaint has been lodged involving the alleged transactions of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 33,000/-, the respondent authorities ought not to have frozen the petitioner's entire bank account. At the highest, only the disputed amount, if any, could have been placed on hold. The blanket freezing of the entire account, including the petitioner's salary, is wholly disproportionate, arbitrary, and violative of settled legal principles. 6. The impugned action of the respondents has deprived the petitioner of his right to access his legitimate earnings and has caused grave financial hardship. The freezing of the entire account, without adherence to the due process of law and without any justification, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6 7. Return has been filed by respondent No.1/Union of India. Operative portion of the said affidavit states as under:- “2. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention here that the Respondent denies every averment as stated in the Writ Petition qua the Respondents except those which are a matter of record and/ or which have been specifically and expressly admitted herein. Accordingly, it is most humbly submitted that there may not be deemed to be any admission on the part of Respondents herein for want of specific traverse and/or denial. 3. That the submission as stated in the counter affidavit to the Writ Petition is independent and without prejudice to the other submission as stated herein. 4. That, in the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following directions- 4.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the cyber acknowledgement complaint crime no. 31904240058357 dated 19.04.2024 (P/1) and cyber acknowledgement complaint crime no. 30801260004611 dated 19.01.2026 (P/2) registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal under administrative control of Respondent no. 1 at the instance of Respondent no. 7 & 8. 4.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 6 to immediately defreeze 7 and remove the hold/lien, if any, on the petitioner's bank account no-30300205721 of State Bank of India Branch Sukma (C.G.) in its entirety. 4.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned cyber complaint acknowledgement. 4.5 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any order which may be deemed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, has been established as a central coordinating agency to facilitate and strengthen the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of cybercrime across the country through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and other institutional mechanisms. It is further Div respectfully submitted that the investigation of cybercrime Affairs complaints and all consequential actions thereon, including the freezing, defreezing, or release of bank accounts and other investigative measures, fall exclusively within the statutory domain of the concerned State/Union Territory Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), which act in accordance with the applicable legal framework. In this regard, the 14C neither exercises administrative nor supervisory control over such LEAs nor possesses any statutory jurisdiction to issue directions in relation to the investigation of 8 individual complaints or the actions undertaken by them. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (14C), functioning under the Ministry of Home Affairs, has been established as a central coordinating agency to facilitate a coordinated and comprehensive approach towards the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of cybercrimes by the State/Union Territory Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) across the country. 7. It is submitted that the National Cyber Crime Reporting (NCRP), consisting of Portal the online portal www.cybercrime.gov.in and the 1930 Helpline, is only a centralised platform for registration and forwarding of cybercrime complaints to the concerned State/UT Law Enforcement Agencies. 8. It is submitted that any lien, hold or freezing of a bank account is undertaken by the concerned Bank strictly pursuant to directions issued by the competent State/UT Law Enforcement Agency under the applicable provisions of al law, including Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The answering Respondent (14C) neither issues directions for freezing bank accounts of the petitioner nor recommends LEAs to freeze the bank accounts without registering an FIR. 9. It is further submitted that under Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, "Police" and "Public Order fall within the exclusive legislative and executive domain of the respective States. Consequently. investigation of 9 cybercrime complaints and issuance of directions for freezing of bank accounts are matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the concerned State/UT Law Enforcement Agencies. 10. It is respectfully submitted that, upon analysis of the Petitioner's bank account bearing No. 30300205721, maintained with State Bank of India, the account was found linked with one online financial cyber fraud complaint bearing Acknowledgement No. 308012600004611, registered with Police Station Special Cell (SB), Delhi. 11. That the total fraudulent amount reported under the above-mentioned is acknowledgement number ₹1,13,80,000/-. Further analysis revealed that an amount of ₹33,000/- was transferred to the Petitioner's bank account from an Axis Bank account, and the said whole amount is specifically identified as suspected proceeds of crime. 12. That it is respectfully submitted that the concerned Bank has informed vide email dated 14.07.2026 that, in Bank PU Account No. 30300205721, three lien amounts of ₹53,000/-₹44,000/- and ₹36,000/- have been marked on account of a loan. Further, a lien of ₹33,000/ has been marked pursuant to Cyber Crime Complaint Acknowledgement No. 30801260004611 It is further submitted that, as per the Bank's extant-guidelines, where the balance in the recipient account is less than the disputed amount, the Bank marks both a hold (lien) and a partial/debit freeze (stop) on the account. Since the available balance in the subject account was only ₹37.56, both the lien and the 10 stop/debit freeze have been marked in accordance with the Bank's prescribed procedure. A true copy of the communication dated 14.07.2026 received from the bank is annexed as Annexure-R1. 13. It is submitted that the concerned Law Enforcement Agency issued directions to the Respondent Bank pursuant to the aforesaid complaint and the Bank acted strictly in compliance with such directions. Therefore, the answering Respondent has no role whatsoever in the freezing of the Petitioner's bank account. 14. That, the further submitted that the particulars of the investigating agency and the freezing instructions are available with the concerned Respondent Bank and may appropriately be placed before this Hon'ble Court by the said Bank. 15. That, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the matter titled Court on its own vs State of Jharkhand and Ors., WP (PIL) 6086/2023, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing freezing/lien of bank accounts, restoration of defrauded funds and grievance redressal, has been prepared by the Indian Cuber Crime Coordination Centre (14C), Ministry of Home Affairs with the consultation of the concern stakeholders including RBI, Banking Associations, major Banks and Financial Intermediaries, Law Enforcement Agencies, DFS, FIU-Ind, NPCI, IFSO wing of Delhi Police, ED, CBI, and other central investigating agencies etc. 11 A True copy of the SOP for NCRI-CFCFRMB, Custody and Restoration of Money, and Grievance Redressal is annexed as Annexure-R2. 16. The guiding principles of the aforesaid SOP given at pg. 11 of Section 1, para 5, provides following procedures, which read as follows: i. Putting on Hold of suspicious transactions and beneficiary account identification reported on CFCFRMS is done to prevent reported amount from being laundered and irretrievably lost in the exercise of powers under S. 168 read with S. 94 BNSS and under S. 106 BNSS. All such requests escalated through CFCFRMS shall be accompanied by notices delivered electronically under the afore mentioned provisions. ii. LEAS shall exercise due diligence while pushing the complaints received on the NCRP or National Cyber Crime Helpline (1930) to CFCFRMS and shall ensure that only such cases where prima facie an offence of Cyber-Enabled Financial Crime is made out, are pushed immediately. Material supporting the information provided by the complainant should be secured and uploaded onto the portal without delay. Officers pushing the complaints are expected to be careful to preclude motivated or frivolous complaints. iii. The mechanism of CFCFRMS is only for CEFCs reported through 1930 or NCRP (cybercrime.gov.in). Any abuse of this system will be strongly discouraged. I4C reserves the right to suspend the accounts noticed for abuse of the system and recommend actions against the concerned persons. 12 iv. Orders for Seizure of accounts or any property issued by a Police agency shall be done in the exercise of powers under Section 106 BNSS, Section 31 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) wherever applicable, or other extant law and should be done only with respect to an FIR, including an e-FIR and a copy of such FIR/e-FIR shall accompany such orders. v. Participating Entities shall take real-time action to put on hold on a reported transaction. For this, banks would need to effect API integrations with the NCRP Portal as suggested by the Department of Financial Services, Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). vi. All Participating Entities shall follow the prescribed Anti Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) norms and take necessary measures, including suspension of digital banking services pending verification of the bona fides of the reported account through Enhanced Due Diligence measures. They shall abide by the relevant RBI circulars or master directions, updated from time to time, and take actions prescribed u/s 12 AA of the PML Act, 2002. vii. Account Holders affected by action of put-on hold, suspension of digital banking services, and seizure of bank account or any property may raise grievances through their respective banks or FIs, and such grievances shall be addressed in timeframe, as elaborated in Para 10. viii. Before issuing an order under Section 106 (3) BNSS, the IOs (Investigating Officers) may conduct 13 verifications with the account holder and their bank and give a reasonable opportunity to submit an explanation for the disputed transaction. ix. Officers of LEAs shall ensure judicious use of the platform through continuous monitoring of the orders issued and grievances raised. Unwarranted orders for freezing accounts shall be discouraged, accountability measures shall be established. and x Money lost in CEFCs and held with the banks and Fls, at any layer, can be released to the victim by following any of the processes as which include; a) Orders issued under Sections 106(3) BNSS (102(3) of CrPC), b) Orders issued by competent courts under Sections 107, 497, 498 of BNSS (451, 452 CrPC) or 503 of BNSS (457 CrPC) or any other extant law. c) Any process prescribed by jurisdictional High Courts. "All possible measures should be taken to ensure that-the victim is not put to undue hardship in the process. All the stakeholders involved in the interim release of the defrauded amount are expected to rely on CFCFRMS and associated banks' statements of respective account holder, Wherever ambiguities are anticipated, safeguards and judicial interventions are contemplated." xi. In case the balance available in the account reported, in zero or is less than the disputed amount, an action is required to be taken by banks to ensure that prescribed EDD is conducted and measures to prevent further loss through the account are taken. The bank will not be expected to release the money 14 to the victim reporting the disputed transaction, whose amounts have been transferred further. However, the amount put on hold. in the bank accounts following subsequent complaints may be released as per the processes mentioned in Para 11 of this SOP, following the due process, to the appropriate victim. xii. An IO must take into account the possibility of reported accounts being operated without the knowledge or connivance or consent of the account holder and must take action accordingly. xiii. While deciding as to which victim the amount put on hold or in an account under seizure, belongs, the following principle will be followed for all the processes: a) Whenever the amount in question can be reasonably attributed to an actual victim, the interim custody may be given through any of the prescribed procedures in this SOP. b) Whenever such attribution is not possible due to commingling of amounts belonging to different victims, the principle of equitable or pro-rata distribution will be adopted. This is in accordance with the various case laws at Annexure III. Illustrations contained in Annexure V explain this principle. Crimes directly reported at the Police Stations by the victims should be escalated to on NCRP-CFCFRMS for action by the LEAs and PES.” 15 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Union of India, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6/State Bank of India submitted that this Court, in Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPCR No.231 of 2026), decided on 15.05.2026, has already considered an identical issue and held as follows: “18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and concurring with the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Kartik (supra), and also in view of the provisions contained in Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, we are of the considered opinion that freezing of a bank account and placing an amount of ₹43,38,375/- on hold cannot be resorted to by the police authorities, particularly when the alleged loss has not been quantified. 19. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure P/16) and the subsequent communication dated 27.04.2026 directing that the amount of ₹43,38,375/- lying in the petitioner's bank account bearing No. 9913203430 be kept on hold are hereby quashed. However, the investigating agency shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with Section 107 of the BNSS, 2023. It is expected that the investigation shall be conducted fairly and impartially by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 20. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.” 16 9. It is evident from the return filed by respondent No.1/Union of India as well as the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.6/Bank that an amount of ₹33,000/-, credited to the petitioner's account on 09.01.2026, has been identified as the suspected proceeds of a cyber crime and is the subject matter of the complaint registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. 10.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's savings bank account is not only his salary account but is also linked to repayment of his housing loan. It is further submitted that, even if the amount of ₹33,000/- is required to remain under lien or on hold in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, there is no justification for preventing the petitioner from operating the remaining balance in his account, particularly when the account is the sole source through which he receives his salary and meets his financial obligations. 11.Per contra, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Union of India and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6/Bank submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to operate the bank account, subject to the lien over the disputed amount. 12.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the petitioner had approached the respondent Bank by submitting 17 a representation seeking de-freezing of his account (Annexure P-5), his grievance was not processed by the Bank in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In response, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner had not availed the grievance redressal mechanism available on the designated portal. 13.On a query being made by this Court as to why the petitioner had not been informed about the appropriate procedure for redressal of his grievance, learned Central Government Counsel submitted that it was the responsibility of the State Government to communicate the said procedure to the petitioner. 14.Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that only an amount of ₹33,000/-, credited to the petitioner's account on 09.01.2026, has been identified as the suspected amount. The petitioner's salary is regularly credited into the said account, which is also linked to repayment of his housing loan. In such circumstances, freezing the operation of the entire bank account would result in undue hardship to the petitioner and would be disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved. Accordingly, while the lien over the disputed amount of ₹33,000/- shall continue in accordance with law, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the bank account for all other legitimate transactions, subject to his extending full cooperation to the investigating agency as and when required. 18 15.This Court also expresses its displeasure with regard to the document annexed as Annexure P-4, which was issued by the respondent Bank. A legible copy of the said document was produced today by Mr. P.R. Patankar. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that the document is undated. The Bank is expected to exercise due care while placing documents before the Court, and such lapses shall not be repeated in future. 16.In view of the foregoing discussion and the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to operate his bank account, subject to the lien over the disputed amount of ₹33,000/-, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating agency in the investigation. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu