Banks must permit account operation while restricting cybercrime-related lien or freeze to the requisitioned amount.

The petitioner challenged the debit freeze/lien imposed on his State Bank of India account pursuant to a requisition issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad, Telangana.

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 to mark a lien/freeze for ₹2,18,500 and had accordingly restricted the petitioner’s account.

The petitioner explained the disputed credit dated 08.05.2023 by producing his account statement and an invoice issued by KLINKER Chem India Private Limited for ₹8,71,450.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to operate his bank account despite the police requisition for freezing/lien, subject to retention of the disputed amount of ₹2,18,500.

2. Whether the frozen/lien-marked amount should be dealt with in accordance with the SOP for NCRP–CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026, including its grievance-redressal mechanism.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution concerning seizure/freezing of property.

It 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 may ordinarily be permitted to operate the account while the lien is restricted to the amount specified in the police requisition, provided the bank has no suspicion that the account is being used for financial cybercrime or money-mule activities.

The Court further relied on the SOP for NCRP–CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026, particularly Clause 10, which provides a time-bound grievance-redressal mechanism for account holders whose funds or accounts have been put on hold.

The Bank established that the freeze was limited to the amount requisitioned by the Cyber Crime Police—₹2,18,500.

The petitioner’s account statement showed receipt of the disputed amount from KLINKER Chem India Private Limited, while the invoice produced by him provided an explanation for the transaction.

In light of the explanation and the principles consistently followed in the cited precedents, the Court held that continued operation of the entire account was not justified merely because a specific amount had been requisitioned for lien.

At the same time, the disputed amount had to remain protected and available for proceedings before the competent authority or Magistrate.

The Court therefore balanced the petitioner’s right to operate his account against the investigative and victim-recovery objectives underlying the cybercrime freezing mechanism, directing that only ₹2,18,500 remain subject to the lien/hold.

The Bank was directed to permit the petitioner to operate his SBI account while limiting the freeze/lien/hold to ₹2,18,500.

Disposal of the frozen amount was directed to be governed by the SOP for NCRP–CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026.

The petitioner was given liberty to pursue the grievance-redressal mechanism under Clause 10 of the SOP in relation to the frozen amount.

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