Bank accounts frozen due to cyber fraud inquiries must be unfrozen.

The petitioner sought the removal of a hold on his bank account.

His counsel submitted that the case was 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' bank accounts with State Bank of India and ICICI Bank were frozen based on intimations from cyber cells of various police stations, alleging involvement in cyber fraud.

The petitioners in *Malcolm Murayis* asserted they had not received any notice regarding their involvement in any offense, were lawfully carrying out their business, and that investigating agencies had not complied with Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

The respondent banks in *Malcolm Murayis* stated they froze accounts only on instructions from cyber cell police stations.

This Court in *Malcolm Murayis* had previously issued an interim order allowing petitioners to withdraw Rs. 50,000 per month.

The State Bank of India had sent emails to cyber crime cells, but most did not respond, demonstrating "poor functioning and irresponsible approach".

1. Whether the hold on the petitioner's bank account should be removed.

2. Whether the decision in *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others* is applicable to the present case.

The court primarily applied the precedent set in *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others* (W.P. No.1100 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024), which directed banks to keep disputed amounts in fixed deposits to be liquidated only after orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which the amounts could be withdrawn by petitioners under intimation to cyber crime agencies, and further mandated the unfreezing of the bank account.

The precedent in *Malcolm Murayis* also considered the police's obligation to proceed in accordance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. or any other relevant law.

The petitioner contended that his case was "squarely covered" by the *Malcolm Murayis* decision.

The court, upon due consideration, concurred, finding that the *Malcolm Murayis* decision was applicable "mutatis mutandis" to the present case.

The court in *Malcolm Murayis* addressed a similar situation where bank accounts were frozen based on cyber fraud allegations without proper procedural adherence like Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

The court in *Malcolm Murayis* noted the non-responsiveness of cyber crime cells.

The relief granted in *Malcolm Murayis* allowed for the unfreezing of accounts while a disputed amount was held in fixed deposits, pending proper legal action by authorities.

By applying this precedent, the court aimed to balance the interests of the petitioner in accessing his funds with the need to address potential cyber fraud allegations, subject to the investigating agencies taking timely legal steps.

It directed the respondent bank to maintain the disputed amount, as informed by the crime agencies, in fixed deposits.

This fixed deposit amount can only be liquidated after orders are passed by a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If the police agency fails to proceed in accordance with relevant law within three months, the petitioner will be permitted to withdraw the amount kept in the fixed deposit, with intimation to the police agency.

Crucially, the bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen.