Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banking and Finance LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Cybercrime-related account freezes must be limited to disputed sums, with remaining funds released.

Brajmohan vs State Bank Of India

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 01, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Cybercrime-related account freezes must be limited to disputed sums, with remaining funds released.. Brajmohan vs State Bank Of India. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought a writ directing State Bank of India to unfreeze his savings account and permit its normal operation.

Source reference: para. 1

He submitted that his 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.

Source reference: para. 2

The Court held that the earlier decision applied to the petitioner’s case mutatis mutandis.

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen, subject to safeguarding any amount identified by the investigating agency as disputed.

Source reference: paras. 4–6

2. Whether the disputed amount, if any, should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Source reference: para. 5
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the directions in Malcolm Murayis, under which an amount identified by cybercrime agencies as disputed is to be kept in fixed deposits and may be liquidated only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Source reference: paras. 3–6

The investigating agency is expected to proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law within three months; if it fails to do so, the amount may be released to the account holder under intimation to the agency.

Source reference: paras. 3–6

Any undisputed balance is not required to remain frozen.

Source reference: paras. 3–6

The earlier decision referred to Section 102 of the CrPC, but the present order framed the applicable requirement by reference to the BNSS or other law relied upon by the police.

Source reference: para. 5
04

Reasoning

Finding the petitioner’s case covered by Malcolm Murayis, the Court applied that precedent mutatis mutandis.

Source reference: para. 4

It balanced the need to preserve any amount claimed by the investigating agency against the petitioner’s request to operate the account: the disputed amount would remain protected in fixed deposits pending lawful action, while the rest of the funds would be released from the freeze.

Source reference: paras. 5–6
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of with a direction to unfreeze the petitioner’s account.

Any amount claimed as disputed by the crime agencies is to be kept in fixed deposits and may be liquidated only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Source reference: paras. 5–7

The police agency is expected to proceed under the applicable law within three months; failing that, the amount may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the agency.

Source reference: paras. 5–7

Any remaining amount in the account is to be defreezed.

Source reference: paras. 5–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

BrajmohanvsState Bank Of India

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 01, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment