Bank accounts frozen due to cyber crime must be unfrozen if an investigation is not completed within three months.

The petitioner, Manish Chouhan, filed a writ petition seeking to de-freeze/unblock his Bank Account No. 001104000308718 maintained with IDBI Bank, Ratlam Kothi Indore Branch, M.P.

His request also included a directive to remove the "lien" or "freeze" from his account and allow him to operate the remaining balance for daily sustenance and business expenses, besides issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or formal withdrawal of a complaint, citing successful delivery of a Sugarcane Juice Machine as evidence

The petitioner's case was stated to be squarely covered by the decision in *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others* (W.P. No.1100 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024)

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the petitioners, involved in crypto and virtual currency trading, had their bank accounts with State Bank of India and ICICI Bank frozen based on intimation from cyber cells alleging involvement in cyber fraud

The *Malcolm Murayis* court had noted the lack of response from several cyber crime cells to emails sent by the State Bank of India regarding the interim order, highlighting their irresponsible approach

1. Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen at the instance of crime agencies, should be de-frozen/unblocked, the lien removed, and the petitioner allowed to operate the account

2. Whether the disputed amount, linked to alleged cyber fraud, should be kept in fixed deposits pending official proceedings

The court primarily applied the principle established in *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others* (W.P. No.1100 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024), where the High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed that disputed amounts frozen by cyber crime agencies be kept in fixed deposits and that accounts be unfrozen, with provisions for withdrawal if the agencies fail to proceed in accordance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. or other relevant law within a specified timeframe

The court also invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs, orders, or directions

The court found that the petitioner's case was directly analogous to the situation addressed in *Malcolm Murayis (supra)*

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the court observed the arbitrary freezing of bank accounts by cyber crime cells without following due procedure, such as Section 102 of Cr.P.C., and the lack of responsiveness from these agencies

Thus, in *Malcolm Murayis*, the court had directed the banks to keep the disputed amounts in fixed deposits, allowing petitioners to withdraw other funds, and stipulated that if competent Judicial Magistrates did not pass orders within three months per Section 102 Cr.P.C. or other relevant law, the fixed deposit amounts could be withdrawn by the petitioners

Applying this precedent, the High Court determined that the same protective measures and procedural safeguards were warranted for the present petitioner, ensuring that while the disputed funds are secured for potential investigation, the petitioner's access to the remainder of his account is restored subject to the timely action of the police agency under the BNSS or other applicable law

This amount shall be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months

If the Police agency fails to proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law within this period, the amount in the fixed deposit may be withdrawn by the petitioner after intimating the Police agency

Furthermore, the bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen