Cybercrime-related account freezes must be limited to the disputed amount, with the account otherwise unfrozen.

The petitioner sought removal of the freeze on his Equitas Small Finance Bank account, asking that only the disputed amount of ₹1,700 be retained.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024, which had directed that disputed funds linked to alleged cyber fraud be placed in fixed deposits pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate.

The Court considered that precedent applicable to the petitioner’s case.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount of ₹1,700 is retained in a fixed deposit.

Whether the disputed amount should remain in fixed deposit pending an order by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

The Court applied its decision in Malcolm Murayis, which directed banks to place the amount identified by cybercrime agencies in fixed deposits, to be liquidated only after orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if the police agency failed to proceed in accordance with law within that period, the amount could be withdrawn by the account holder after informing the agency.

In the present case, the Court referred to action under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon by the police agency.

Finding the Malcolm Murayis decision applicable mutatis mutandis, the Court applied its safeguards to the petitioner’s account: the disputed sum of ₹1,700 would remain secured in a fixed deposit while the account itself was unfrozen.

The police agency was expected to seek the competent Judicial Magistrate’s orders within three months; failing that, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the agency.

The petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen as expeditiously as possible.

The petition was disposed of.