Disputed cybercrime funds must be held in fixed deposit pending timely Magistrate orders; remaining funds must be unfrozen.

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging a hold, freeze, or lien of ₹6,18,650.36 on its bank account and seeking removal of the restriction

The Court found the matter covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024, and held that its directions applied mutatis mutandis

No counsel appeared for the petitioner; the State was represented by a Government Advocate.

1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account, subject to a freeze following a cybercrime-related communication, should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is protected pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate.

2. Whether the balance, if any, in the petitioner’s account could remain frozen.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where a bank-account freeze is challenged.

Applying Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024 (26 April 2024), the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit and that the police proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law, including obtaining orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within the specified period; otherwise, the amount may be withdrawn by the account holder after informing the police agency.

The earlier decision referred to compliance with Section 102 of the CrPC; the present order framed the direction by reference to the relevant BNSS provisions or other applicable law.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case materially covered by the approach in Malcolm Murayis and applied that decision mutatis mutandis.

It balanced preservation of the disputed ₹6,18,650.36 against the petitioner’s ability to operate the account: the disputed sum was to be placed in a fixed deposit pending timely action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, while the account itself was to be unfrozen and the remaining balance released.

The respondent bank was directed to keep ₹6,18,650.36 in a fixed deposit, to be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if the police agency failed to proceed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the agency. The petitioner’s account was to be unfrozen, and any other amount in it was not to remain frozen.