Bank accounts frozen on mere police intimation must be unfrozen, reserving only the disputed amounts in fixed deposits.

The petitioner, Akhilesh Solanki, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the sudden freezing/holding of his bank account (No. 25030269450) maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra

The account was restricted at the behest of cyber crime agencies investigating alleged cyber fraud transactions

The petitioner sought a direction for the removal of this hold, claiming it was imposed without lawful authority or proper notice to him

The petitioner argued his case was identical to the precedent set in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024)

1. Whether the unilateral freezing of the petitioner's bank account by investigative agencies without adhering to procedural safeguards is legally sustainable

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to operate his account, subject to certain conditions, in light of the directions issued in Malcolm Murayis (supra)

The court primarily applied the legal principles governing the seizure of property and bank accounts by police authorities under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

The court strictly followed the precedent established in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024), which mandates that investigative agencies must report seizures to the Magistrate and that disputed amounts should be secured in fixed deposits rather than completely freezing an account indefinitely

Section 102 Cr.P.C. in the updated legal context refers to relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The Court observed that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by the Malcolm Murayis decision

In that precedent, the Court critiqued the "poor functioning and irresponsible approach" of cyber crime cells that freeze accounts via email but fail to respond to court inquiries or comply with statutory mandates under Section 102 Cr.P.C.

The High Court determined that the principle of mutatis mutandis applied here

Consequently, rather than maintaining a total freeze, the court reasoned that the specific "disputed amounts" identified by the crime agencies should be isolated into fixed deposits to secure the interests of the investigation, while allowing the petitioner to regain access to the account itself. This ensures procedural compliance with the BNSS/Cr.P.C. while preventing arbitrary deprivation of the petitioner's access to his funds.

The Bank was ordered to keep the specific disputed amounts in fixed deposits (FDs). These FDs are to be liquidated only upon orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, provided the police proceed in accordance with the law (BNSS/Cr.P.C.); otherwise, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the FD amounts under intimation to the agency

The petition was disposed of with these directions