Cyber-fraud-related accounts must be unfrozen, with disputed sums secured in fixed deposits pending judicial orders.

The petitioner challenged the freeze/hold on its IDBI Bank account, alleging that it had been imposed without lawful authority or an order.

The petitioner relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024, and sought removal of the freeze.

The Court held that the *Malcolm Murayis* decision applied *mutatis mutandis*.

1. Whether the directions issued in *Malcolm Murayis* concerning bank accounts frozen on the instructions of crime agencies applied to the petitioner’s account.

2. Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount was secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may issue appropriate directions concerning a bank-account freeze.

The Court applied its decision in *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that the amount identified by crime agencies be kept in fixed deposits and permitted liquidation only after orders by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if the agency did not proceed in accordance with law within that period, the amount could be withdrawn under intimation to the agency.

In the present case, the Court referred to the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon by the police agency, without identifying a specific section.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered by *Malcolm Murayis* and applied that precedent *mutatis mutandis*.

It therefore balanced preservation of the disputed amount with the petitioner’s ability to operate the account: the amount reported by the crime agencies was to remain secured in fixed deposits pending timely action by a competent Judicial Magistrate, while the petitioner’s account was to be unfrozen.

The respondents were directed to keep the disputed amount identified by the crime agencies in fixed deposits, to be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If the police agency failed to proceed in accordance with law within that period, the amount could also be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the agency.

The petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen.