Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Wykit Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally signed
by ALOK
SHARMA
ALOK Date:
SHARMA 2026.08.05
11:46:59
+0530
1
CGHC010256842026 2026:CGHC:32826-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 393 of 2026
1 - M/s Wykit Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Having Its Registered Office At Flat
No. 39, B- 08 Poonamalle High Road Dr. Radha Krishnan Nagar,
Arumbakkam, Chennai Tamil Nadu- 600106 Through Its Director Sachin Sam
Aged About 29 Years S/o Shri Samkutty G. Director W Y K I T Saftware
Solutions Pvt Ltd, Residing At Karavallil Puthen Veedu Parakode,
Ezhamkulam, Pathanamthitta, Kerala, - 691554 Presently At G- 82, Pocket -
1 Block - G, Dilshad Colony, Delhi - 110095 , Aadhar No. 669102016708
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Superintendent Of Police, District North Bastar Kanker Office Of The
Superintendent Of Police Kanker District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
3 - Station House Officer , Police Station Kanker / Cyber Cell, Kanker District-
North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
4 - A X I S Bank Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Kanker Branch District-
North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
5 - Yes Bank Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Chennai High
Road Chennai Tamilnadu I F S C Yes B 0000005
6 - H D F C Bank Limited, Through Its Branch Manager Branch Mylapore
Chennai Tamilnadu I F S C Hdfc 0000323
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Prakash, Advocate through V.C.
along with Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
2
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30/07/2026
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, through video conferencing, along with Ms. Anamika Jain. Also
heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the
respondent/State.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following
reliefs::
“10.1. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, calling for
records including the complaint, FIR, seizure memo,
Magistrate’s order under Sections 106 and/or 107 of
BNSS, or any other communication/order forming the
basis of freezing/debit restriction of the Petitioner’s
bank accounts; and/or10.2. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the
Respondent authorities and the concerned banks to
forthwith defreeze the Petitioner’s bank accounts
bearing Axis Bank Account No. 924020044385739; Yes
Bank Account No. 000563200001083; and HDFC Bank
Account No. 50200099556554; and/or10.3. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the
Respondent authorities and the concerned banks from
imposing any blanket debit freeze/restriction on the
Petitioner’s bank accounts without disclosing the
specific transaction, quantified amount, material relied
upon and order of the competent authority/court
authorising such freezing; and/or
310.4. That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case may kindly be issued in favour of the
petitioners along with the cost of the petition.”
3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of digital payments, payout
facilitation and allied payment aggregation support services. The petitioner
maintains, inter alia, three business bank accounts, namely, Axis Bank
Account No. 924020044385739, Yes Bank Account No. 000563200001083,
and HDFC Bank Account No. 50200099556554, which are used in the
ordinary course of its business for facilitating merchant settlements, payouts
and allied transactional services. In connection with Crime No. 146/2026
registered at Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, the Cyber
Cell, Kanker, issued Notice No. P.A./Kanker/Cyber Cell/687/2026 dated
14.05.2026 under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, calling upon the petitioner to furnish information relating to the
aforesaid bank accounts. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, on 16.05.2026,
submitted a detailed reply furnishing the information sought and also
requested copies of the complaint, FIR, seizure memo, statements and other
relevant documents forming the basis of the investigation. However, despite
extending full cooperation, the petitioner alleges that its aforesaid bank
accounts have been subjected to debit freeze/restriction in connection with
the said crime without supplying any complaint, seizure memo, freezing
order, report under Section 106 of the BNSS, or any order of the competent
Magistrate under Section 107 of the BNSS. Aggrieved by the continued
freezing of its business bank accounts, which has seriously affected its day-
to-day business operations, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
seeking de-freezing of the said accounts and other consequential reliefs.
4
4. The petitioner submits that the continued debit freeze imposed on its
aforesaid business bank accounts has seriously prejudiced its lawful
business operations. The said accounts are utilized for facilitating merchant
settlements, payouts and other day-to-day business transactions, and the
blanket restriction has effectively paralysed the petitioner’s financial
operations. As a consequence, the petitioner is unable to process merchant
settlements, make legitimate payouts, discharge its contractual and financial
obligations, or conduct its regular business activities. It is further submitted
that despite extending full cooperation to the investigating agency by
furnishing the requisite information and transaction details, the respondents
have continued the debit freeze without disclosing any specific transaction,
quantified amount, or material connecting the petitioner with the alleged
offence, thereby causing substantial financial loss and irreparable prejudice to
the petitioner’s business and commercial reputation.
5. The petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in
imposing a blanket debit freeze on its business bank accounts has been
taken without supplying any freezing order, seizure memo, report under
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), or any
order of the competent Magistrate under Section 107 of the BNSS. According
to the petitioner, no material has been disclosed indicating any specific
unlawful transaction, the identity of any complainant or victim, the beneficiary
trail, the UTR/reference number, or the quantified amount allegedly involved
so as to establish any nexus between the petitioner’s bank accounts and the
alleged offence. It is further contended that, even assuming, without
admitting, that any particular transaction is under investigation, the
respondent authorities could not have lawfully imposed a blanket debit freeze
on the petitioner’s entire business accounts. At the highest, only the specific
5
disputed amount, if any, could have been secured by way of a lien or limited
restriction. The continued freezing of the entire accounts, including legitimate
funds unconnected with the alleged investigation, is, according to the
petitioner, arbitrary, disproportionate, violative of the statutory procedure
prescribed under the BNSS, and infringes the petitioner’s rights guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent
authorities in continuing the blanket debit freeze on its business bank
accounts has deprived it of access to its legitimate business funds and has
severely disrupted its day-to-day commercial operations, including merchant
settlements, payouts and discharge of contractual and financial obligations. It
is contended that the continued restriction, imposed without following the due
procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
and without disclosing any specific material establishing a nexus between the
petitioner’s funds and the alleged offence, is arbitrary, unreasonable and
disproportionate. According to the petitioner, the impugned action is violative
of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g)
and 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
7. This Court, vide order dated 27.07.2026, directed the concerned
Superintendent of Police to file his personal affidavit in the matter. In
compliance with the said direction, the Superintendent of Police, District
North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), has filed his personal affidavit on 29.07.2026,
which reads as under:
“2. That the petitioner has preferred the captioned writ
petition praying for a direction to the respondent
authorities and the banks 10 forthwith defreeze the
petitioner’s bank accounts bearing Axis Bank Account
6No. 924020044385739; Yes Bank Account No.
000563200001083; and HDFC Bank Account No.
50200099556554 and to restrain the respondent
authorities and the concerned banks from any imposing
blanket debit freeze/restriction on the petitioner’s bank
accounts without disclosing the specific transaction,
quantified amount, material relied upon order of the
competent and authority/Court authorizing such
freezing.
3. That, the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, has created a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal to
prevent cyber crime in India in which, the victims of
cyber crime report online by giving details of the cyber
fraud committed with them and by filling the information
of mobile numbers and bank accounts used in cyber
fraud.
4. That, the brief description of the case is that, the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has
established a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal to prevent
cyber crime in India. Victims of cyber crime can report
online by detailing their cyber fraud, including the mobile
number and bank account used in the fraud. These are
the bank accounts used by cyber crime offenders to
launder fraud proceeds.
5. That on 25.04.2026, while the police party is on
patrolling nearby the city along with the staff for crime
investigation, information was received from an informer
that at Pappu Dhaba, Aaturgaon, that some people were
earning money by sitting on the roadside in Aaturgaon
Nakapara, playing online betting through mobile phones
and making illegal transactions by providing IDs. While
reaching the site the police party summoned notice to
Naveen Hiradhar and Mohd Iqbal who were present
near Pappu Dhaba, Kanker to verify the information.
After summoning Iqbal Khan and serving him notice
7under section 179 BNSS and informing him about the
information given by the informant, on reaching the
place mentioned by the informant, Aaturgaon Nakapara,
some people were seen in suspicious condition on the
side of the main road, whom they were surrounded and
after conducting a raid, the accused persons namely 1.
Oshin Baghmare S/o. Praveen Baghmare age 25 years;
2. Aman Kumar Rai S/o. Ajay Rai; 3. M Sandeep Kumar
S/o. late M Shankar; 4. Saurabh Singh S/o. Ajay Singh
were found who were making people play online
gambling and betting by providing facility to make ID to
people on MJ BOOK and MDVH BOOK sites
batbhai9.com, cricbet9.com swiftbetz.com. They were
served notice under section 94 of the BNSS on the spot
to produce valid documents/license regarding online
betting through mobile. They told in writing that they do
not have any valid documents in this regard. Redmi
Note 13 5C mobile with mobile no. 7070739292 and
Redmi Note 9 Pro Max mobile without SIM and one
more One Plus mobile were recovered from the
possession of accused Oshin Badhamre. Poco M7
mobile with mobile no. 8839595874 and Oppo mobile
without SIM and cash amount of Rs. 4000/-, Motorola G
06 mobile with mobile no. 6263637716 and 02 other
mobiles were recovered from the possession of accused
M. Sandeep Kumar and an iPhone 13 mobile with
mobile no. 6232714602 and iPhone 15 Pro broken
mobile with mobile no. 9304866892 were recovered
from the possession of accusedSaurabh Singh, total
value of all the mobiles was Rs. 1,15,000/- in the
presence of witnesses Naveen Hirachar and Mohd. As
per the evidence given by Iqbal, the seizure memo was
prepared and the articles used in the crime were seized
and taken into police custody. The accused Oshin
Baghmare, Aman Kumar Rai, M Sandeep Kumar,
Saurabh Singh were found to have committed the crime
8FIR has been registered at Crime No. 146/2026 before
Police Station Kanker District North Bastar Kanker (CG)
for the offences punishable under Section 111(2)B,
111(4) of BNS and section 7, 8 of the Chhattisgarh
Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 and section 66 D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 against the accused
persons. They were duly informed about the reasons for
their arrest on the spot and the arrest memo was issued
to them on 26.04.2026 at 00:10 hrs, 00:20 hrs, 00:30 hrs
and 00:40 hrs respectively and their families were
informed about the arrest.
6. The accused Aman Kumar Rai and Saurabh Singh
were produced before the Magistrate on 26.04.2026 and
from where they were sent to jail on judicial remand. On
the basis of memorandum statement of other accused
Osin Baghmare and M. Sandeep Kumar, after detailed
interrogation of absconding accused Kshitij Hirwani and
Vinay Yadav and other accused involved in the case, it
was found that they were working in an organized
manner for online betting. On observation of the seized
mobile phones, the bank accounts used for illegal
transactiofis of online betting have been put on hold.
7. On 10.04.2026, on the mobile observation of
Chhatrapal alias Kshitij Hirwani, the main accused Vinay
Yadav and the accused involved in online betting
deposited Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- on 11.04.2026
in Axis Bank account number 924020044385739 of
Wykit Software Solutions Private Limited, total of Rs.
1,00,000/- in cash. On receiving the statement number
924020044385739 in further investigation, it was found
that the said bank account was continuously deposited
at different places. On perusal of the bank statement, it
was found that cash was deposited and lakhs of rupees
were withdrawn. The arrested accused in the case had
stated that the online betting amount was deposited and
9withdrawn simultaneously from different places on a
daily basis. Rupees were transacted from Axis Bank
account no. 924020044385739. Suspicious amount trail
was found in Yes Bank Account No. 000563200001083,
HDFC Bank Account No. 5020099556554 and Account
No. 99999893548911. In the course of investigation, a
notice under Section 94 BNSS was sent to Wykit
Software Solutions Private Limited on 14.05.2026 to
present its side, but due to non-receipt of factual reply
regarding the transactions in the concerned bank
accounts, the Axis Bank account number
924020044385739 000563200001083, HDFC Bank
account number 5020099556554 debit of Wykit
Software Solutions Private Limited has been frozen. The
bank accounts are lien/frozen after the company
provides factual information regarding suspicious
transactions in the bank accounts. It is respectfully
submitted that in the present case investigation is going
on in respect to the absconding accusing persons
namely Vinay Yadav and Kshitij alias Kshatrapal Hirwani
and others in the case. The necessary report regarding
the involvement of petitioner Wykit Software Solutions
Private Limited in the case is also prima facie made out.
8. That, during the investigation conducted so far, it has
been revealed that the accused persons in connivance
with the other co-accused persons had committed the
crime of online betting and have done various
transactions in the accounts maintained by the petitioner
and by such fraudulent means and the aforesaid amount
has been dishonestly transacted and credited by the
accused persons. It is further revealed that, the accused
persons are the instrumental in the use of the aforesaid
bank account number and thereby deceived innocent
persons/people to part with their money, which was
subsequently misappropriated.
10
9. That, during the course of investigation, it was
revealed that, the accused persons are the member of
an organized crime of online betting and gambling and
had used the accounts of the petitioner for the money
collected during the online betting and gambling and the
accused persons formed a criminal syndicate and
operated within the framework of this criminal
organization, which demonstrates their criminal
tendencies, their connections to organized gangs and
their tendency to commit crimes repeatedly.
10. It is most humbly submitted that in the present case,
the bank account of the petitioner, namely Wykit
Solution, was directly found to be circulated within the
WhatsApp groups operated by the accused persons.
Clear and explicit instructions were disseminated in the
said groups directing the depositors to remit the money
received from illegal online gambling directly into this
specific account. Thus, it is firmly established that the
petitioner is a direct repository of the proceeds of crime
and an active link in the illicit transactions.
Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim the defense of
being a bonafide third party, as might have been the
position in older, distinguishable cases relied upon by
them.
11. It is pertinent to mention that a complete debit freeze
of the subject account was an absolute necessity to
prevent the immediate withdrawal and siphoning off of
the funds. In the investigation of cases involving online
gambling, it has been consistently observed that within
minutes of a police raid or the apprehension of an
accused, the funds are swiftly withdrawn or transferred
out of the accounts. If the debit freeze had not been
strictly imposed, the entire proceeds of crime would
have been dissipated, leaving no assets available for
subsequent attachment or forfeiture under Section 107
11of the relevant statute. Therefore, the immediate
preventive action was legally justified to preserve the
corpus of the illegal earnings.
12. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble High Court
that the syndicates orchestrating such illegal online
gambling networks function through highly sophisticated
and clandestine methods. These bank accounts are
typically operated from remote and undisclosed
locations, and the ill-gotten money is rapidly transferred
through multiple layers of accounts to obscure the
money trail and evade law enforcement. Permitting the
unrestricted operation of the petitioner’s account at this
crucial juncture would have irreversibly frustrated the
ongoing investigation and allowed the perpetrators to
successfully launder the illicit wealth.
13. It is respectfully submitted that the investigating
agency is actively and rigorously investigating the entire
money trail to unearth the broader network. However, to
ensure fairness and uphold the principles of natural
justice, the State is willing to modify the complete freeze
to a lien mark limited strictly to the disputed amount.
This is entirely contingent upon the petitioner company
providing its complete, authenticated balance sheets
and financial records to the investigating officer. This is
required to clearly differentiate and segregate the illicit
gambling proceeds from the alleged legitimate business
earnings of the company. Until such financial
transparency is provided by the petitioner, the current
restriction on the account is lawful, proportionate, and
necessary in the interest of justice.”
8. In the case of Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055, it was held as follows:
“12. Here, instead of directing preservation of disputed
amount, which was mere Rs. 200/-, the bank was
12directed to freeze the entire account. Such action of
freezing the account, in its entirety, has, reportedly, left
the petitioner high and dry. It has led to significant
adverse financial consequences, including dishonouring
of several cheques issued by the petitioner and the
complete disruption of its business operations.
13. While dealing with a petition involving a similar issue
which happened with a street-vendor, this Court had
made following observation in Pawan Kumar Rai v.
Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936:
25, Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the
entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious
and adverse implication and invades and
encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and
live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence,
amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the
petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to
livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
26,. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency
has identified a specific sum credited to the bank
account of the petitioner, it is difficult to
comprehend as to why the entire bank account of
petitioner has been freezed.
27. Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank
account of the petitioner, without even hinting that
the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice
in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds
as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable
and sustainable, at the moment.”
14. Investigating Agency is fully empowered to conduct
investigation, and can also, under appropriate
circumstances, send request to the concerned bank,
directing freezing of the entire account.
15. However, when it resorts to above, it must assign
reasons.
13
16.Such discretion vests with investigating agency, its
better left to them to decide as to when such blanket
freezing needs to be ordered. However, once it chooses
to do so, it must offer some justification. Such blanket
measure, if taken recourse to, without offering any
reason, can certainly play havoc with the financial
concerns of such account holders. In relation to small-
time vendors, it can disrupt prospects of their mere
existence, even. It is not difficult to imagine that any
such action can put their lives in a complete disarray.
17. Therefore, possibility of marking a lien on disputed
amount, whenever it is identifiable, should be explored
as a more appropriate interim measure. Ideally, it should
be the first and foremost option. This would, naturally,
mitigate the undue hardship being caused on account of
blanket freezing of account and would also ensure that
the alleged cheated money remains secured and intact.
18. It is pertinent to highlight that while dealing with a
batch of petitions involving a similar issue, Kerala High
Court in Dr. Sajir v. Reserve Bank of India, 2023 SCC
OnLine Ker 9087 also made observation which reads as
under:–
“11. In the afore perspective, when the
requisitions in these cases-by various Police
Authorities in several States of India mention the
exact amount suspected to have been credited to
the accounts of the petitioners herein, one fails to
fathom why their bank accounts in full, should
remain frozen. This is more so because, even
when the sums in question may have found credit
in the accounts of the petitioners, unless the
investigation eventually reveals that they were
complicit in the Cyber Crime, or had received the
same being aware of it, they could never be
construed to be accused.”
12. In fact, should the criminal enquiry found
14
otherwise, it will be doubtful if the amounts in
question could be even recovered from the
petitioners, if they have received it as part of
bonafide or other valid transactions, unaware of it
being proceeds of crime.”
9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent/State,
submitted that this Court, in Vikram Singh Rana v. Union Of India & Others
(WPCR No. 366 of 2026), decided on 27.07.2026, has already considered
an identical issue relating to freezing of bank accounts during investigation
and held as follows:
“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.”
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
pleadings as well as the personal affidavit filed by the Superintendent of
Police, District North Bastar Kanker, this Court finds that the investigation in
Crime No.146/2026 is still in progress. The affidavit discloses that the
investigating agency has traced certain suspicious transactions allegedly
connected with the offence and has prima facie found that an amount of
15
Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the petitioner’s Axis Bank account on
10.04.2026 and 11.04.2026. The affidavit further states that the money trail is
under investigation and that the investigating agency is willing to modify the
complete debit freeze to a lien limited to the disputed amount, subject to the
petitioner furnishing the requisite financial records.
11. It is well settled that although the investigating agency possesses the
authority to freeze a bank account during the course of investigation, such
power must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and proportionate manner.
Where the alleged tainted amount is identifiable, continuation of a blanket
debit freeze over the entire account, particularly where the account is used
for carrying on legitimate business activities, may result in undue hardship
and serious prejudice. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner, including
Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine
Del 1055), as well as the decision of this Court in Vikram Singh Rana v.
Union of India & Others (WPCR No.366 of 2026, decided on 27.07.2026),
reiterate that, ordinarily, the interests of investigation can be adequately
protected by maintaining a lien over the disputed amount instead of freezing
the entire account.
12. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the ends of justice would be adequately served by protecting the amount
alleged to be connected with the investigation while permitting the petitioner
to carry on its legitimate business operations. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the allegations under investigation, the
respondent Banks are directed to permit operation of the petitioner’s bank
accounts, namely, Axis Bank Account No. 924020044385739, Yes Bank
Account No. 000563200001083 and HDFC Bank Account No.
16
50200099556554, subject to maintaining a lien over the disputed amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall extend full
cooperation to the investigating agency, furnish such documents and
information as may be lawfully required during the course of investigation,
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do
so.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok
