HC mandates bank officials to cooperate fully under Section 161 CrPC and Section 180 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; refuses to pardon advocate's misconduct, calls for Bar Council to enforce strict disciplinary action.
In a significant ruling dated 30th September 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata) underscored the critical role of banks in cooperating with ongoing cyber crime investigations and issued a stringent warning to advocates regarding adherence to court orders and professional conduct.
The case arose from the investigation of a cyber crime registered as CR No. 211 of 2024 at the Cyber Police Station, Central Department, Worli, Mumbai. The Court, following its earlier directions dated 28th September 2026, required the personal appearance of Regional Heads of major banking institutions including ICICI Bank, Kotak Bank, and others, to ensure full cooperation with the probe.
During proceedings, counsel for the respondent banks assured the Court that their respective officers would extend all necessary assistance to the investigating agency and appear before the investigating officer at designated times. Specifically, Mr. Ramsahay Prajapati, Branch Manager of ICICI Bank's Wadala Branch, was directed to appear on 1st October 2026 at 11:00 a.m. with all relevant records for recording statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court accepted these assurances, emphasizing the statutory duty of banks to cooperate in criminal investigations, particularly in the realm of cyber crimes which have become increasingly complex and pervasive.
On the matter of professional conduct, the Court addressed a request by senior counsel to pardon an advocate, Mr. Mandar Lalsare, and expunge adverse observations recorded against him for willful disobedience of court orders. The Court declined this request, noting a disturbing trend of advocates flagrantly disregarding court directions and misleading judicial authorities. The bench expressed concern that repeated leniency had emboldened such conduct, leading to a decline in respect for judicial authority among advocates, litigants, and even government officers.
Noting that even judicial officers have recently displayed misconduct, the Court emphasized the urgency of arresting this decline and preserving the dignity and authority of judicial proceedings. It placed the onus squarely on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take strict disciplinary action against advocates who undermine court authority by willful disobedience or contemptuous behavior.
The Court's firm stance sends a clear message that casual treatment of court orders will no longer be tolerated and that legal professionals must uphold the highest standards of integrity and respect for the judiciary.
The matter has been adjourned to 14th October 2026 for further proceedings as requested by the Additional Public Prosecutor.
Bottom Line:
Criminal investigation - Cyber crime case - High Court directed bank officers to appear before investigating officer with necessary records for recording statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 / Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Court emphasized duty of banks to cooperate with investigation - Court also refused to expunge adverse observations against an Advocate and stressed that willful disobedience of court orders by Advocates undermines authority of Court and warrants stern action by Bar Council.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Dhiren Sushil Roy v. Cyber Police Station, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991099
