Bank accounts must be unfrozen, securing only disputed amounts in fixed deposits pending investigation under law.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to Punjab National Bank and HDFC Bank to defreeze/remove the lien from his respective bank accounts

The petitioner argued that his case was identical to Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100/2024), where bank accounts were frozen by banks solely on the intimation of various cyber cell police stations alleging involvement in cyber fraud

In the cited precedent, the accounts were frozen without the petitioners receiving notice of any offence and without the investigating agencies informing the Magistrate of the seizure as required by law

1. Whether the respondent banks can continue to freeze the petitioner’s accounts indefinitely based on police intimations without the investigating agencies following statutory procedural mandates

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others regarding the partial operation of frozen accounts

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and statutory compliance under Article 226 of the Constitution

It relied on the procedural requirements of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (and corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/BNSS), which mandate that investigating agencies must inform the concerned Magistrate regarding the seizure of property/accounts

The court also applied the doctrine of mutatis mutandis, holding that the legal reasoning from the precedent Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others was directly applicable to the present facts

The court observed that the petitioner’s situation was squarely covered by the Malcolm Murayis decision

In that case, the court criticized the "irresponsible approach" of cyber crime cells that freeze accounts via email but fail to respond to court proceedings or follow statutory procedures under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.

The court reasoned that while the disputed amount must be secured to protect the integrity of any investigation, the account holder should not be deprived of their entire account indefinitely due to administrative inaction

Consequently, the court found it appropriate to balance these interests by isolating only the disputed amount into a fixed deposit while unfreezing the remainder of the account

The banks were ordered to keep the specific "disputed amount" (as identified by the crime agencies) in fixed deposits

These deposits shall only be liquidated upon orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, provided the police agency proceeds in accordance with the BNSS or relevant law

If the agency fails to act within three months, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount under intimation to the agency

The petition was disposed of with these directions