Facts
The petitioner sought removal of a ₹60,000 lien marked on his bank account, alleging that the respondents’ action was improper
Source reference: para. 1He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, W.P. Nos. 1100 and 1185 of 2024, in which the High Court had directed banks to place disputed sums in fixed deposits pending action by the investigating agencies.
Source reference: paras. 2–3The Court held that the earlier decision applied *mutatis mutandis* to the petitioner’s case.
Source reference: para. 4Issues
Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the ₹60,000 lien removed, subject to safeguarding the disputed amount
Source reference: paras. 1, 4–5Whether the bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount remained secured pending action by the police agency
Source reference: para. 5Law Applied
The Court applied its decision in *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that a disputed sum identified by cybercrime agencies be kept in a fixed deposit, with liquidation dependent on an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such order is passed, the amount may be withdrawn by the account holder after informing the cybercrime agencies.
Source reference: para. 3In the present case, the Court referred to the police agency proceeding under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon.
Source reference: para. 5Reasoning
Finding the earlier *Malcolm Murayis* decision applicable *mutatis mutandis*, the Court adopted its protective arrangement for the disputed funds.
Source reference: para. 4It directed that the ₹60,000 identified by the crime agencies be secured in a fixed deposit, while requiring the police agency to proceed in accordance with law and obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If it failed to do so, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the police agency; the rest of the account was to be unfrozen as expeditiously as possible.
Source reference: para. 5Holding
The petition was disposed of.
The bank was directed to keep ₹60,000 in a fixed deposit subject to the three-month Magistrate-order condition and, failing such an order, permit withdrawal after intimation to the police agency. The petitioner’s bank account was also to be unfrozen expeditiously.
Source reference: paras. 5–6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
Gourav BeherevsState Bank Of India Through Branch Manager
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
