Facts
The petitioner’s ICICI Bank account was frozen following information from crime agencies, with ₹1,55,432.92 identified as the disputed amount.
Source reference: pp. 1, 3He sought removal of the hold and relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024.
Source reference: pp. 1, 3The High Court considered whether the directions in Malcolm Murayis applied to his case.
Source reference: pp. 1, 3Issues
1. Whether the directions in Malcolm Murayis concerning disputed funds in a bank account frozen on the request of cybercrime authorities applied to the petitioner’s case.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 42. Whether the petitioner’s account could be unfrozen while preserving the disputed amount pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 5–6Law Applied
The Court applied its decision in Malcolm Murayis, which directed that the amount identified by cybercrime agencies be kept in fixed deposits and not liquidated until orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if the agency failed to proceed within that period, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioners after informing the agency.
Source reference: Malcolm Murayis, paras. 9–10, reproduced at pp. 2–3The present order referred to action under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon by the police, without specifying a particular statutory provision.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Reasoning
The Court found the present case covered mutatis mutandis by Malcolm Murayis.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4It therefore distinguished the disputed sum of ₹1,55,432.92, which was to remain protected in a fixed deposit pending timely orders by the competent Judicial Magistrate, from any other funds in the account, which were not required to remain frozen.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 5–6Holding
The petition was disposed of.
The bank was directed to keep ₹1,55,432.92 in a fixed deposit, releasable only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders were passed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the police agency.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 5–7The bank account was to be unfrozen, and any balance beyond the disputed amount was to be released from the freeze.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 5–7Acts & 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
Huzaifa Khandwa WalavsIcici Bank
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
