Directing unfreezing of bank accounts by sequestering disputed cyber-fraud amounts in fixed deposits.

The petitioner, Rajeev Verma, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to de-freeze his bank account (No. 5556101000021) maintained with Canara Bank.

The account had been frozen following intimations sent by cyber cell police agencies to the bank regarding alleged involvement in cyber fraud.

The petitioner contended that his case was identical to the matter of Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024), where the court provided relief against indefinite freezing of accounts by investigating agencies.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the de-freezing of his bank account based on the precedent set in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others.

Whether the disputed amount in the petitioner's account can be secured while allowing the petitioner to operate the remainder of the account.

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the legal principles established in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others, which mandates adherence to Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (and corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS) by investigating agencies when seizing or freezing property.

The rule establishes that accounts should not be frozen indefinitely without informing the concerned Magistrate or following statutory procedures.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s situation was "squarely covered" by the Malcolm Murayis decision.

In that precedent, the Court noted a pattern of irresponsible behavior by cyber crime cells, where accounts were frozen via email without subsequent legal follow-up or compliance with Section 102 Cr.P.C.

Applying this logic, the Court found that while the investigation must be protected, the petitioner should not be deprived of his entire account.

The Court determined that the disputed amount involved in the alleged fraud was specifically Rs. 19,500.

Consequently, it reasoned that securing this specific sum in a Fixed Deposit (FD) would balance the interests of the state and the petitioner’s right to access his funds.

The Bank was ordered to keep the disputed amount of Rs. 19,500 in a Fixed Deposit.

This FD is only to be liquidated upon orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If the police agency fails to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS within this three-month window, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the FD amount under intimation to the agency.