Frozen bank accounts must be restored if investigative agencies fail to comply with statutory seizure reporting requirements.

The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the Respondent authorities in freezing his bank account (No. 100037163225)

The Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the freeze order and a writ of mandamus to restore full operation of the account

The Petitioner contended that his case is squarely covered by the precedent Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100/2024), wherein accounts were frozen by cyber cells alleging cyber fraud without providing notice to the account holders or complying with statutory seizure procedures

Whether the freezing of the Petitioner’s bank account by investigative agencies without following due process is sustainable

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India regarding the partial unfreezing of accounts linked to cyber-crime investigations

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

It relied on the procedural requirements of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)—and the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which govern the power of police officers to seize property and require reporting such seizures to a Magistrate

The Court followed the principle established in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India, which holds that while disputed amounts in cyber-fraud cases may be secured, the entirety of an account should not remain frozen indefinitely if investigative agencies fail to follow statutory procedures

The Court found that the Petitioner’s situation was identical to the facts in Malcolm Murayis

In that precedent, the Court observed a pattern where cyber crime cells requested banks to freeze accounts but failed to respond to legal notices or comply with Section 102 Cr.P.C.

The Court reasoned that to balance the interests of justice and the needs of the investigation, the "disputed amount" (the sum specifically linked to the alleged fraud) should be secured in a fixed deposit (FD) rather than freezing the entire account

By applying this reasoning mutatis mutandis to the present case, the Court concluded that the Petitioner's account must be unfrozen, provided the specific amount under investigation is protected through an FD pending further orders from a Magistrate

The bank is directed to keep the disputed amount, as identified by the crime agencies, in a fixed deposit

The FD shall only be liquidated upon orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate within a three-month period

If the police agency fails to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law within three months, the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the FD amount under intimation to the agency