Orissa High Court
Page 12 vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party (S) on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2031 of 2025
Alongwith
CRLMC Nos.2454, 2461, 2462 & 2463 of 2025
(In the matters of applications under Section528 of B.N.S.S., 2023
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.)
Padmini Meher .... Petitioner (s)
(In CRLMC No.2031 of 2025)
Prasanta Meher
(In CRLMC No.2454 of 2025)
Dusmantaraj Meher
((In CRLMC No.2461 of 2025)
Jasobanti Meher
(In CRLMC No.2462 of 2025)
Hemanta Meher
(In CRLMC No.2463 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, Adv.
For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Debashish Nayak, AGA
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-05.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.03.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since the issues raised in all the CRLMCs referred to above involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, CRLMC No.2031 of 2025 is treated as the lead case.
2. The present CRLMC petitions arise out of FIR No.04 of 2024 dated 20.01.2024 registered at Cyber Crime and Economic Offences Police Station, Bolangir, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, on the basis of intelligence inputs regarding an alleged cryptocurrency investment fraud relating to "Dykan Coin". I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and preliminary investigation, is that certain accused persons, belonging to the same family, created and promoted a cryptocurrency token and induced members of the public to invest money with an assurances of high returns, while allegedly operating a pyramid or multi-level marketing structure.
(ii) During investigation, it was found that multiple bank accounts, including the IDFC Bank account of the present petitioner Padmini Meher, were used for receiving funds, and an amount of Rs. 15,85,022/- was credited to her account between October Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 2023 and January 2024 from various sources including transfers from co-accused persons.
(iii) The Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, directed freezing of several bank accounts including that of the petitioner to prevent further inflow and alleged siphoning of funds, following which the petitioner filed an application for de-freezing before the learned SDJM, Bolangir.
(iv) The learned SDJM, Bolangir, by order dated 01.08.2024, rejected the application for de-freezing, and the said order was affirmed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Criminal Revision No. 8/1 of 2024-25 by order dated 06.03.2025.
(v) Aggrieved by the continued freezing of her bank account and the rejection of her applications by the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking de-freezing of her bank account.
II. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner submits that the present petitions are limited in scope and do not challenge the registration of the FIR but only the legality of freezing her bank account, which has been done without following the due procedure prescribed under law and without proper judicial oversight.
Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
(ii) It is contended that the power to freeze bank accounts is not traceable to Section 157 CrPC and, if at all exercised, must be in accordance with Section 102 CrPC, which mandates reporting of such seizure to the Magistrate, a requirement that has not been complied with in the present case.
(iii) The petitioner further argues that the freezing of her account was done solely on the instructions of the Investigating Officer without any independent judicial order, rendering the action illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.
(iv) It is further submitted that the petitioner is not the promoter, director, or key managerial person of the alleged scheme and is merely a family member whose account received certain transfers, which by itself does not establish her involvement in any fraudulent activity.
(v) The petitioner contends that there is no direct evidence on record, including any statement of investors, to show that she induced or cheated any person, and the amounts credited to her account could represent legitimate family transfers or personal receipts.
(vi) It is urged that the orders passed by the learned SDJM and the revisional court are cryptic and non-speaking, failing to examine the necessity and proportionality of continued freezing, thereby amounting to an abdication of judicial duty.
Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
(vii) The petitioner further submits that continued freezing of her account for over a prolonged period without filing of charge sheet is wholly disproportionate and has caused severe hardship by depriving her of access to her own funds required for livelihood and legal expenses.
(viii) It is contended that the reliance placed by the State on judgments such as Teesta Atul Setalvad Setalvad -vrs.- State of Gujarat1 is misplaced, as the petitioner is not a principal accused and no material exists to justify treating her account as proceeds of crime.
(ix) The petitioner asserts that mere familial relationship with other accused persons cannot give rise to vicarious criminal liability, and suspicion arising from transactions cannot substitute proof of involvement.
(x) On these grounds, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned orders and de-freezing of her bank account, or in the alternative, appropriate directions for review of the continued freeze.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
4. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Debashish Nayak and Ms. Gayatri Patra earnestly made the following submissions in support of their contentions:1
(2018) 2 SCC 372 Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
(i) The State submits that the FIR discloses a large-scale cryptocurrency fraud involving inducement of more than 13,000 investors through false promises of high returns, and the accused persons, including the petitioner, were part of a coordinated fraud scheme involving creation and promotion of Dykan tokens.
(ii) It is further contended that the accused persons operated a pyramid or ponzi scheme disguised as a cryptocurrency business, using multiple bank accounts, including that of the petitioner, to receive funds from investors and to facilitate siphoning of money.
(iii) The State relies on the bank statement of the petitioner showing receipt of Rs. 15,85,022/- within a short period along with transfers from co-accused persons and third parties, which according to the investigation indicates use of her account as a conduit for routing funds.
(iv) It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or documentary proof for the source of such funds, thereby raising a strong suspicion regarding the legitimacy of the transactions.
(v) The State contends that the power of the police to investigate cognizable offences under Section 157 CrPC includes taking necessary steps to preserve evidence and prevent further Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 commission of offences, including freezing of bank accounts where required.
(vi) It is argued that the freezing of accounts was necessary to prevent further inflow of funds from unsuspecting investors and to ensure that the amounts already received are not dissipated during the course of investigation.
(vii) The State further submits that the orders passed by the learned SDJM and the revisional court do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and were passed after considering the materials available at the stage of investigation.
(viii) It is further contended that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage, involving complex financial transactions, large number of investors, and untraced digital wallets, and therefore continued freezing of accounts is essential for effective investigation.
(ix) The State also submits that the accused persons were operating an unregistered crypto exchange in violation of applicable regulatory norms and possible provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, necessitating deeper investigation into the money trail.
(x) On these grounds, the State prays for dismissal of the petitions, contending that de-freezing at this stage would prejudice the ongoing investigation and may enable further fraudulent activity or dissipation of funds.
Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the record, including the FIR, the impugned orders dated 01.08.2024 (learned SDJM, Bolangir) and 06.03.2025 (learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir), the bank statements, and the submissions advanced by both sides.
6. The narrow question that arises for consideration is whether the continued freezing of the petitioner's personal bank account (IDFC Bank A/C No. 10155079208) under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), during the pendency of investigation in FIR No. 04 of 2024, is legally sustainable, and whether the impugned orders of the courts below refusing de-
freezing are liable to be set aside.
7. At the outset, there is no dispute that the power of the police under Section 102(1) CrPC is indeed broad. The provision empowers any police officer to seize "any property" which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. The legislature, by employing the expressions "any property" and "any offence," has made the applicability of the provision wide enough to cover offences created under any statute.
8. The question whether a bank account constitutes "property" within the meaning of Section 102 CrPC was authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 Neogy2,. In that case, the Court examined whether the police officer investigating an offence could issue prohibitory orders in respect of bank accounts in exercise of power under Section 102 of the Code. After noting that High Courts across the country had taken divergent views, the Supreme Court held:
"A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 102 indicates that the police officer has the power to seize any property which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. The legislature having used the expression 'any property' and 'any offence' have made the applicability of the provisions wide enough to cover offences created under any Act. But the two preconditions for applicability of Section 102(1) are that it must be 'property' and secondly, in respect of the said property there must have been suspicion of commission of any offence."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that there was no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Code and concluded that the bank account of an accused or of his relation is "property" within the meaning of Section 102(1) CrPC, and a police officer in the course of investigation may seize or prohibit the operation of such an account, provided such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence under investigation. This position is not in dispute.
10.The State has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra), to justify the continued freezing. In that case, the Supreme Court, after reiterating the law in Tapas D. 2 (1999) 7 SCC 685 Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 Neogy(supra), upheld the seizure of bank accounts where the Investigating Officer had materials pointing to circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence, and the investigation was still in progress. The Court noted that the procedure for freezing had been followed by giving intimation to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 102(3) of the Code. However, what the State has failed to highlight is the critical rider laid down in the very same judgment. The Supreme Court observed as follows:
"Once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the court concerned, it would be open to the appellants to apply for de-freezing of the bank accounts and persuade the court concerned that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code. It will be open to the concerned Court to consider that request in accordance with law after hearing the investigating agency, including to impose conditions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case."
The Court further clarified:
"We clarify that at an appropriate stage or upon completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and is of the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he will be well advised to issue instruction in that behalf."
11.The above observations make it abundantly clear that even in Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra), the Supreme Court did not countenance indefinite freezing. The Court recognised that the freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 CrPC is an interim measure to preserve evidence during investigation, not a permanent deprivation of Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 property. The reliance placed by the State on this judgment is, therefore, misplaced, inasmuch as it supports the petitioner's case for review of the continued freeze rather than its perpetuation.
12.The power under Section 102 CrPC, though broad, is not unbridled. The Supreme Court in Tapas D. Neogy(supra) identified two mandatory preconditions: (a) there must be "property"; and (b) in respect of that specific property, there must be a suspicion of commission of any offence. The property must have a direct link with the commission of the offence under investigation. A property not suspected of connection with the offence under investigation cannot be seized.
13.In fact, the High Court of Bombay in Gulam Sarvar v. State of Maharashtra3, while examining the requirements of Section 102 CrPC, held:
"Making of an allegation simplicitor; for the purposes of Section 102 of Cr.P.C., is not sufficient and it must be shown that the allegation is founded on such a material as to at least create a reasonable suspicion about the amount in the account having some connection or possibility of having some connection with the commission of crime."
14.In the present case, the State's sole material against the petitioner is the receipt of Rs. 15,85,022/- in her IDFC Bank account, including certain transfers from co-accused persons. However, the petitioner is not shown to be a promoter, director, or key managerial person of the alleged "Dykan Coin" scheme. There is no statement of any 3 2018 SCC OnLineBom 164 Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 investor identifying the petitioner as having induced or cheated them. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was actively involved in the creation, promotion, or operation of the alleged pyramid or ponzi structure. The amounts credited could well represent legitimate family transactions or personal receipts. The mere receipt of funds in a family member's account, without more, does not establish the direct link required under Tapas D. Neogy(Supra) and the subsequent line of authorities.
15.It is well established that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a long line of decisions beginning with Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation4, has held that the deprivation of a person's means of livelihood would amount to deprivation of life itself. The total freezing of the petitioner's sole personal bank account for over fourteen months, without a charge- sheet being filed against her, has left her without access to funds necessary for livelihood and legal expenses. Such an indefinite deprivation must be tested on the touchstone of proportionality.
16.The Madras High Court, in Mohammed Saifullah v. Reserve Bank of India5, held that an investigating agency cannot freeze the entire bank account of a person implicated in financial fraud without first quantifying the amount directly linked to the alleged fraud, and that 4 (1985) 3 SCC 545 5 W.P.No.25631 of 2024 Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44 a blanket freeze would constitute a violation of fundamental rights including the right to livelihood. The Court emphasised that the powers under Section 102 CrPC, and corresponding Section 106 BNSS, 2023, must be exercised judiciously and with responsibility.
17.Applying these principles, the total quantum frozen (approximately Rs. 15.85 lakhs) is modest in comparison to the scale of the alleged fraud involving over 13,000 investors. The State's interest in the account has progressively diminished over time as the investigation has advanced. The petitioner's interest in accessing her own funds for basic sustenance and legal representation, on the other hand, has only increased. In such circumstances, a blanket freeze of the entire account is disproportionate and cannot be sustained.
18.This Court has examined the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned SDJM, Bolangir, rejecting the petitioner's application for de-freezing, and the order dated 06.03.2025 of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, affirming the same. Both orders are cryptic and non-speaking. Neither order contains any assessment of (a) the strength of the material linking the petitioner's account to the alleged offence; (b) the necessity of continued freezing at the relevant stage of investigation; (c) the proportionality of the measure vis-à-vis the hardship caused; and (d) whether a less restrictive alternative (such as partial release or conditions) would adequately serve the interests of the investigation.
Page 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
19.It is trite law that judicial orders must be reasoned. The requirement of a speaking order is not merely procedural but substantive as it serves as the basis for appellate review. Non-speaking orders, particularly those sustaining significant restrictions on fundamental rights, amount to an abdication of the judicial function and are contrary to the principles of justice and fairness.
20.The FIR was registered on 20.01.2024. As on the date of hearing, more than two years have elapsed without any charge-sheet being filed against the petitioner. While the Court is mindful that the investigation involves complex financial transactions and a large number of investors, the absence of a final report after such a prolonged period raises serious concerns. The freezing of a bank account under Section 102 CrPC is an investigative measure, intended to assist the investigation, and not a punitive measure. Its continuation without any definite timeline or progress towards filing of charge-sheet amounts to an indefinite deprivation of property, which is impermissible.
21.In Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra), the Supreme Court itself recognised that upon completion of the investigation or at an appropriate stage, the Investigating Officer, if satisfied that continued seizure is unnecessary, should issue instructions accordingly. The spirit of this observation is that freezing orders must be periodically reviewed and cannot be perpetuated as a matter of routine.
Page 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
22.This Court is conscious of the fact that the investigation relates to an alleged large-scale cryptocurrency fraud and that the State has a legitimate interest in preserving potential proceeds of crime. At the same time, the petitioner's fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 must yield only to a pressing and demonstrable investigative need. With the investigation far advanced, no immediate risk of dissipation demonstrated, and no charge-sheet filed against the petitioner, continuing the blanket freeze is no longer justified.
23.The appropriate course is to direct conditional de-freezing, which protects the interests of the investigation while restoring to the petitioner access to her funds for reasonable expenses. This approach finds support in the observations of the Supreme Court in Teesta Setalvad(Supra), where the Court left it open for the concerned Court to impose conditions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case.
V. CONCLUSION:
24.For the foregoing reasons, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned orders dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned SDJM, Bolangir and 06.03.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir are hereby set aside.
25.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:
Page 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
a) The Opposite Party State shall forthwith de-freeze the petitioner's bank account (IDFC Bank A/C No. 10155079208), subject to the conditions set out hereinbelow.
b) The petitioner shall be entitled to operate the account normally, subject to maintaining a minimum balance as may be fixed by the learned Magistrate, taking into consideration the amount in question and the stage of investigation.
c) The petitioner shall give advance written notice of not less than 7 days to the Investigating Officer before making any withdrawal exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in a single transaction, pending completion of the investigation.
d) The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to continue to monitor the account and, if necessary, may move the learned Magistrate under Section 102(3) CrPC for restraining only that portion of funds which is directly and demonstrably linked to the alleged offence.
e) In the event of any change in circumstances or if the Investigating Officer places fresh material before the learned Magistrate establishing a direct link between the petitioner's account and the alleged offence, the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, including re-imposition of restrictions, after hearing the petitioner.
Page 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:25:44
f) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
26. Accordingly, all the above-mentioned CRLMCs are disposed of.
27.The interim order staying the proceedings, if any, is vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31stMarch, 2026/ Page 17