Cyber-fraud account freezes must be limited to the disputed amount, with the remaining balance released.

The petitioner sought the removal of a debit freeze on her Bank of India account, alleging that the account had been frozen in connection with a cybercrime investigation.

She asked that the account be restored to normal operation, subject to preserving any identified disputed amount, and sought written particulars of that amount and consideration of her representations dated 29 and 31 August 2026.

The Court considered the matter covered by *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, W.P. Nos. 1100 and 1185 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain completely frozen when the identified disputed amount could instead be preserved separately.

Whether the disputed amount should be retained in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, with the remaining funds released to the petitioner.

The Court applied the approach adopted in *Malcolm Murayis*, under which the bank was directed to place the disputed amount identified by the cybercrime agencies in fixed deposits, to be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders were passed within that period, the amount could be released to the petitioners under intimation to the agencies.

The precedent referred to the investigating agencies’ obligation to proceed in accordance with Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other applicable law; the present Court expressed that the police should proceed under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or other law relied upon.

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

It therefore distinguished the disputed sum of ₹5,500, as communicated by the crime agencies, from the balance of the account: the disputed sum could be safeguarded in a fixed deposit while the police pursued the required legal process, but the remaining funds did not need to remain frozen.

The bank was directed to place ₹5,500 in a fixed deposit, releasable only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such an order within that period, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.

The bank account was to be unfrozen, and any other funds in it were not to remain frozen.