Banks must limit cybercrime-related debit freezes to the requisitioned amount and permit account operations.

The petitioner challenged the debit freeze/lien imposed on his bank account with the State Bank of India pursuant to a requisition issued by the CICE Crime Branch, Srinagar.

He contended that he was neither an accused nor connected with the crime registered against other persons and that the freezing of his account violated Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution.

The Bank confirmed that it had received a requisition from the first respondent to mark a lien/freeze for Rs. 6,786.80 in the petitioner’s account and had accordingly frozen the account.

During the proceedings, the Court noted the applicability of the Indian Cyber Crime Co-Ordination Centre’s SOP for NCRP–CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026, including its grievance-redressal mechanism for affected account holders.

1. Whether the petitioner’s entire bank account could remain debit-frozen when the police requisition related only to a specified amount and the petitioner was not alleged to be an accused in the underlying crime.

2. Whether the Bank should permit the petitioner to operate the account while retaining a lien/freeze over the requisitioned amount, subject to the applicable cybercrime SOP.

3. Whether the petitioner had a remedy under the grievance-redressal mechanism prescribed by Clause 10 of the SOP in respect of the frozen/lien amount.

The Court applied the principles laid down in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India, 2024 (1) KLT 826; Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch, 2024 KHC 768; and Abhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC 1676, under which a bank account holder should ordinarily be permitted to operate the account, while the lien or freeze is limited to the amount specified in the police requisition, provided the Bank has no independent suspicion that the account is being used for financial cybercrime or money-mule activities.

The Court also relied on the SOP for NCRP–CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026, which governs the custody, restoration, disposal and grievance redressal relating to amounts placed on hold in cybercrime investigations.

The petitioner’s challenge was founded, inter alia, on Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS and Article 300A of the Constitution.

The Bank’s own confirmation established that the police requisition concerned only Rs. 6,786.80, rather than the entire balance in the petitioner’s account.

Applying its earlier decisions, the Court held that a requisition for a specified amount did not justify continuing a blanket freeze over the account.

The account could therefore be operated by the petitioner, while the requisitioned amount remained subject to lien/hold and available for appropriate action before the jurisdictional Magistrate or under the applicable SOP.

Since the 2026 SOP provided a specific, time-bound grievance-redressal process for account holders affected by such holds or suspension of account operations, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue that remedy in relation to the disputed amount.

Disposal of the frozen or lien-marked amount was directed to be undertaken in accordance with the SOP for NCRP–CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026.

The petitioner was permitted to pursue the Clause 10 grievance-redressal mechanism concerning that amount.

The Bank was also left free to impose any further lien, hold or freeze upon receipt of future requisitions.