Cyber-fraud freezes must be limited to disputed funds, with the account otherwise unfrozen.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the debit freeze on his Bank of Maharashtra account No. 60433785455.

His counsel submitted that the case was covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024.

The Court recorded that the disputed amount communicated by the crime agencies was Rs. 1,099 and applied the precedent mutatis mutandis.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount identified by the crime agencies is preserved.

Whether the disputed amount should be retained pending orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate, and what should follow if no such orders are passed within the specified period.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others, which directed banks to place the disputed amount in fixed deposits pending orders of a competent Judicial Magistrate, while permitting withdrawal if the authorities failed to obtain such orders within three months.

The present Court adapted that direction to require the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon.

The Court considered the precedent in Malcolm Murayis applicable mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.

It therefore distinguished the disputed sum of Rs. 1,099 from the remainder of the account: the bank was to preserve that sum in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.

The police agency was allowed three months to obtain orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law; absent such orders, the fixed-deposit amount could also be withdrawn by the petitioner, with intimation to the police agency.

The Court directed that the petitioner’s account be unfrozen and that Rs. 1,099 be kept in a fixed deposit pending orders of a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If no such orders were passed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the police agency.