Orissa High Court
WP(C)/21040/2026 of BICHITRA NARAYAN MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIA on 8 September 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21040 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010500272026 Bichitra Narayan Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Sidhartha Sankar Ray (2) -versus- The Union of India and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. P.K. Parhi,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21040 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010500272026
Bichitra Narayan Mishra
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. –
Mr. Sidhartha Sankar Ray (2)
-versus-
The Union of India and others
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. –
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along
with Mr. Digvijay
Harichandan
(For O.P. No.1)
Mr. D.K. Mahapatra,
Advocate for the O.P. No.2-
Bank
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
08.09.2026 Order No.
04.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Bank. Perused the writ petition as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: I. Quash the impugned letter dated 25.02.2026 issued by opposite party No.2 (ANNEXURE- 7); II. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.2 to forthwith defreeze the Petitioner's Business/Current Account bearing Account No.40301918680, State Bank of India, Lochapada Branch, Berhampur;
III. Direct release of the entire balance amount along with reasonable interest for the period of illegal freezing; And for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may be require and as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. AND
Further be pleased to issue any other appropriate Writ/s, direction/s, order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner is a self-employed person and doing business and is having a current account in the Opposite Party No.2-Bank. He further submitted that on the basis of some allegation made by the investigating agency, the entire bank account of the Petitioner has been freezeed. He further submitted that the Petitioner is unable to operate his bank account which is causing him difficulty in running his day-to- day businesses. He further contended that, according to the bank authority, a total amount of Rs.2,042.08 paisa is involved in such cyber fraud, which has been credited to the account of the Petitioner. Apart from that, there is no other allegation.
5. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Bank, on the other hand, contended that on the basis of the information received from the cyber-crime police stations from different states, they have freezed the bank account of the present Petitioner He further contended that the total impact of such fraud would be Rs.2042.08 paise. It was also contended that they are awaiting further instruction from such cyber-crime police stations with regard to the outcome of such investigation. He further contended that despite their best efforts, they are not able to know the status of the investigation. On such ground, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Bank submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides, this Court observes that it is not disputed by the parties that a total amount of Rs.2042.08 paisa has been wrongly credited to the account of the present Petitioner. Other than that, there is no further allegation with regard to any kind of cyber fraud. In the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court is of the view that keeping the current bank account of the Petitioner freezed would be injustice to the Petitioner.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directs the Opposite Party No.2-Bank to verify the aforesaid aspect and in the event it is found that the total amount of alleged fraudulent transaction is Rs.2,042.08 paise, then, keeping such amount, the Petitioner shall be permitted to operate his bank account, subject to Petitioner furnishing an indemnify bond in favour of the Bank thereby indemnifying the bank with respect to any future claims of cyber-crime fraud against the Petitioner’s account.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-Sep-2026 13:44:30 Signature Not Verified