Ahmedabad: A Rs 20 digital payment for what was likely a cup of tea has brewed an unexpected legal dispute for an Ahmedabad tea stall owner. His entire bank account was frozen after the miniscule UPI transaction surfaced in the money trail of an alleged cyber fraud case being investigated by Telangana police.Sultan Ahemad Sheikh, who runs Al-Safar Pan and Tea Corner in Ahmedabad’s Mirzapur area, has approached Gujarat High Court after his HDFC Bank account was frozen because a customer transferred Rs 20 to him through UPI on April 19. The amount was later found to be part of a transaction trail under investigation by the Cyberabad cybercrime police in Telangana.According to Sheikh’s petition, since the Rs 20 ultimately reached his account, the investigating agency asked the bank to freeze it. As a result, he lost access to the entire account despite not being named as an accused or suspect in the cyberfraud case.After learning why the account was frozen, Sheikh repeatedly approached bank officials seeking restoration of access. However, the bank declined to unfreeze the account, stating that it was acting on the directions of the Telangana police as part of the ongoing investigation.Sheikh moved the high court through advocates Shehzad Ansari and Fahim Memon, arguing that the Rs 20 was received from a customer in the ordinary course of business. The advocates placed his bank records before the court to show that the transaction was a routine payment for his business and had no connection with the alleged fraud.The petitioner contended that while the disputed amount was only Rs 20, the freeze deprived Sheikh of access to his entire bank balance, severely affecting his daily financial transactions, including repayment of EMIs.Hearing the matter, Justice Nikhil Kariel observed that when a person is not an accused in a criminal case, authorities generally freeze only the disputed amount rather than the entire bank account.The court directed the state govt to obtain instructions in the matter and allowed Sheikh to implead the state home department as a respondent. It also directed him to provide a copy of the petition to the govt lawyer.“The state shall take appropriate instruction by the next date on July 24,” the court said, while keeping the matter pending for further hearing.
