Bombay HC Directs Police To Initiate Unfreezing Of Monster.com Account, Finding No Material Linking It To Alleged Job-Fraud Proceeds

Petitioner No. 1, an online recruitment and talent-solutions company, stated that it received payments of ₹47,200 each in March and May 2026 from Tejansh Tripathi under a service agreement for access to its résumé database.

Its ICICI Bank account was frozen following a direction from Kolsewadi Police Station during investigation of an FIR alleging that the complainant had been defrauded of ₹9,34,356 in a job-placement scheme.

The company applied to the JMFC for de-freezing; the application was rejected on 4 September 2026.

It then sought relief under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

The Court’s reasoning applied the principle that an account freeze connected with a criminal investigation must have an evidential basis linking the account or funds to the alleged offence; an asserted money trail, without material demonstrating that connection, did not justify maintaining the freeze in this case.

The judgment cited no precedent or further statutory provision governing the freeze.

The State submitted that the complainant had paid money to a person named Ravinder, who had allegedly layered funds through various accounts. However, despite the Court’s specific query, the State produced no material linking the petitioner company’s account to the alleged proceeds of crime.

The JMFC had relied on an asserted credit to the company’s account from the complainant, but the State could not substantiate that finding or establish a connection between the defrauded amount and the company.

In those circumstances, the Court found the basis for refusing de-freezing untenable.

The petition was made absolute in those terms.