Bank accounts frozen due to cyber fraud require judicial order for liquidation or unfreezing.

The petitioner, OMPRAKASH BHATI, filed a writ petition seeking directions to defreeze his bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank and to process disputed amounts for refund to cyber victim accounts, among other reliefs.

The petitioner's bank account was frozen based on an intimation from cyber cells alleging involvement in a cyber fraud, without prior notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that the freezing of the account without complying with Section 106(3), 107 of BNSS, 2023, and without following Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India was illegal and unconstitutional.

The petitioner's case was argued to be squarely covered by the decision in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others.

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without complying with statutory provisions and constitutional articles is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

2. Whether the disputed amount in the petitioner’s account, frozen due to alleged cyber fraud, should be kept in fixed deposits, and the account unfrozen, pending orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate.

The court primarily applied the principles derived from its own decision in *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others* (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024), which addressed the freezing of bank accounts by cyber cells.

This precedent stipulates that disputed amounts identified by cyber crime agencies should be kept in fixed deposits, and bank accounts should be unfrozen, allowing liquidation of fixed deposits only after orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, or allowing withdrawal by petitioners if the police fail to proceed in accordance with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. or other relevant laws.

The court also implicitly considered Section 102 of Cr.P.C. (now potentially BNSS provisions) regarding the seizure of property.

The constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A concerning legality, equality, freedom to carry out business, life, and property were also implicitly considered.

The court found the petitioner's case to be identical to *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. (supra)*.

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the court noted the irresponsible approach of cyber crime cells in freezing accounts based on allegations of cyber fraud without issuing notices or responding to follow-up emails from banks.

The court in *Malcolm Murayis* concluded that investigating agencies must proceed in accordance with law, specifically Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or other relevant statutes, and inform the concerned Magistrate about any seizure.

Applying this precedent, the court reasoned that the bank, having acted on instructions from crime agencies, should keep the disputed amount in fixed deposits, and the petitioner's account should be unfrozen.

The rationale was to balance the needs of investigation with the petitioner's right to operate their account, while ensuring the police adhere to legal procedures for seizure and investigation within a stipulated timeframe.

The fixed deposits are to be liquidated only after orders passed by a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

Failing this, the petitioner will be allowed to withdraw the amount from the fixed deposit under intimation to the Police agency.

The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen.