Bank account freezing must be limited to disputed funds, permitting operation of a bona fide account.

The petitioner, a practising advocate, maintained Savings Bank Account No. 30968448585 with the State Bank of India, Dhubri Branch, for personal and professional transactions.

On 26 November 2025, the Bank notified him that holds of ₹50,000, ₹10,000 and ₹3,649—totalling ₹63,649—had been placed on the account.

The Bank subsequently informed him that the account had been frozen pursuant to an instruction generated through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal in connection with Cyber Crime Case ID No. 829015817 and Acknowledgment No. 21506250016233.

The petitioner was not supplied with any FIR, notice, seizure memo or judicial order.

He made representations to the Cyber Crime Cell, Edathala Police Station, Kerala, and to the Bank seeking removal of the freeze.

He was informed that an alleged cyber-fraud amount had passed through several accounts and that a portion had been credited to his account, although the police officer allegedly clarified that he was innocent and unconnected with the offence.

As the Bank declined to defreeze the account on the ground that it was acting on cyber-police instructions, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner’s entire bank account could remain frozen pursuant to a cyber-crime portal instruction when only ₹63,649 had been identified as allegedly connected with the suspected fraudulent transaction and no FIR, notice, seizure memo or judicial order had been furnished to him.

2. Whether the interests of the cyber-fraud investigation could be protected by permitting the petitioner to operate the account while retaining the disputed amount under lien.

The Court applied the principle that a blanket or indefinite freezing of an entire bank account, without quantifying the disputed amount or specifying the period and legal basis of restraint, must be balanced against the fundamental and proprietary interests of an innocent account holder.

It relied on Mohammed Saifullah v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors., where the Madras High Court held that freezing an entire account under the guise of investigation, without quantification of the amount or period, was impermissible.

Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., where the Delhi High Court emphasised balancing the complainant’s interests with those of an innocent account holder facing a blanket freeze.

Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur v. Union of India & Ors., concerning attachment/freezing of bank accounts under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court further recognised that cyber-fraud investigations serve an important public interest, but that such interest does not automatically justify continued freezing of the entire account.

The Court accepted that the freeze had originated from an instruction transmitted through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and that the Bank had acted on that instruction.

However, the material before the Court identified only ₹63,649 as connected with the suspected fraudulent transactions, while the petitioner claimed to be a bona fide account holder and had not been provided formal criminal or judicial documentation.

Applying the balancing principle reflected in the cited precedents, the Court held that the investigation could be protected without depriving the petitioner of access to his entire account.

Accordingly, it adopted a proportionate course: the account would be defreezed, but the specifically disputed amount would remain secured by way of lien pending further directions from the competent cyber-crime authorities.

SBI was directed to retain a lien over ₹63,649 until further directions were issued by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, namely the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and the Cyber Crime Cell, Edathala Police Station.

No order as to costs was made.