Bank accounts must be unfrozen, securing disputed amounts in fixed deposits pending judicial orders within three months.

The petitioner, Aakash Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the freeze/hold placed on his Axis Bank account (No. 915010046375830) maintained at the Indore branch.

The petitioner argued that his case was identical to the matter of Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100/2024), where accounts were frozen by cyber cell police stations on allegations of cyber fraud—often involving cryptocurrency trading—without the investigating agencies providing notice to the account holders or complying with statutory requirements regarding the seizure of bank accounts.

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by investigating agencies is sustainable when procedural mandates are not strictly followed.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted in the precedent of Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others.

The Court applied the principles of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied upon the procedural requirements of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)—now corresponding to the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which mandates that investigating agencies inform the concerned Magistrate regarding the seizure of property.

Furthermore, the court applied the precedent established in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (2024), which balances investigative necessity with the account holder's rights by securing only the disputed amount in fixed deposits.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s circumstances were squarely covered by the decision in Malcolm Murayis.

In that precedent, the Court had noted the "poor functioning and irresponsible approach" of various cyber crime cells that failed to respond to judicial inquiries or demonstrate compliance with Section 102 Cr.P.C.

Applying those findings mutatis mutandis to the present case, the Court reasoned that while investigations into cyber fraud must continue, the petitioner should not be deprived of account access indefinitely without due process.

The Court determined that the appropriate remedy is to segregate the "disputed amount" into a fixed deposit (FD) to protect the interests of the investigation while unfreezing the remainder of the account to allow the petitioner to resume operations.

It ordered that the specific disputed amount, as identified by the crime agencies, be kept in a fixed deposit, which shall not be liquidated for three months unless ordered by a competent Judicial Magistrate.

The Court held that it is the responsibility of the police agency to proceed in accordance with the BNSS or other applicable laws within this three-month window; failure to do so will entitle the petitioner to withdraw the FD amount under intimation to the agency.

The petition was disposed of with these specific directions.