Banks must unfreeze accounts and secure only disputed cyber-fraud amounts in fixed deposits.

The petitioner sought removal of a lien or freeze on his bank account, or alternatively that it be limited to the disputed amount of ₹3,614, with the balance released and the account restored to operation.

He also sought directions concerning the investigation and disclosure of the complaint or orders underlying the freeze.

Relying on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024, the petitioner contended that the same approach should apply.

The Court accepted that precedent as applicable *mutatis mutandis*.

1. Whether the disputed amount of ₹3,614 should remain secured while the petitioner’s bank account is unfrozen.

2. Whether the police agency should be directed to proceed in accordance with law and obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

The Court applied its decision in *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, under which a disputed amount connected with a cybercrime-related account freeze may be kept in a fixed deposit, while the account is otherwise made operational; the amount may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within the prescribed period, failing which it may be withdrawn by the account holder under intimation to the investigating agency.

The Court directed the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law on which it relies.

The Court found the petitioner’s case covered by the approach in *Malcolm Murayis* and applied that decision *mutatis mutandis*.

It therefore distinguished between the disputed sum and the remaining account balance: the ₹3,614 was to be preserved in a fixed deposit pending appropriate judicial orders, while the petitioner’s account was to be unfrozen.

The police agency was given three months to proceed in accordance with law and obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate; otherwise, the fixed-deposit amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner upon intimation to the agency.

The Bank was directed to keep ₹3,614 in a fixed deposit, subject to the stated conditions, and the petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen.

The police agency was expected to act in accordance with law and secure an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount under intimation to the agency.