CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has sought clarity on the legal status of crypto currency in India while hearing petitions filed by four persons whose bank accounts were frozen in connection with alleged crypto transactions.
The matter was heard on Monday by a single judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi. The petitioners had moved the high court after the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balangir, rejected their plea for defreezing of their seized bank accounts. FIRs had been registered against them at the Cyber Crime and Economic Offences police station, Balangir, alleging involvement in crypto currency transactions.
When the case was taken up, counsel for the state submitted that he was “presently not in a position to render effective assistance to the court on the specific and substantial question that arises for consideration in the present case, namely, whether crypto currency, in the context of the allegations forming the subject matter of this proceeding, is to be treated as legal, illegal, regulated, or otherwise within the prevailing statutory and regulatory framework in India.”
Observing that the issue has far-reaching implications, the Justice Panigrahi said, “It was not merely academic but has significant implications in matters relating to cyber offences, financial fraud, money laundering and cross-border transactions.”
Stating that adjudication involved both legal and technical dimensions, the court directed the Balangir SP to appear in person on February 26, 2026. The nodal officer of the Cyber Cell, Balangir or another officer well-versed in crypto currency platforms, block chain technology, digital wallets and the regulatory regime governing virtual digital assets, has also been asked to assist the court.
The officers have been directed to address issues including the present legal status of crypto currency, any statutory prohibitions, the regulatory framework, investigation and prosecution mechanisms, and the basis or intelligence inputs behind the FIRs. The state has also been directed to deposit `25,000 as costs for repeated adjournments.