Frozen bank accounts must be unfrozen, sequestering only the disputed amount in fixed deposits.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the State Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) to defreeze and remove a lien/hold placed on her bank account (No. 33247015025)

The petitioner contended that her case is identical to the precedent established in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024), where bank accounts were frozen by cyber cells of various police stations on allegations of cyber fraud without prior notice to the account holders or compliance with statutory seizure procedures

1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen in light of the principles established in the Malcolm Murayis case regarding the freezing of accounts by investigative agencies

2. Whether the disputed amount allegedly linked to cybercrime should be secured in a fixed deposit pending further legal proceedings

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

It relied on the procedural requirements for seizure of property by police officers under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

the corresponding relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The court strictly followed the precedent set in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024), which mandates a balanced approach between investigative necessity and the rights of the account holder

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s situation was squarely covered by the decision in Malcolm Murayis, where the court criticized the "poor functioning and irresponsible approach" of cyber crime cells that freeze accounts via email but fail to respond to court proceedings or comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.

The court determined that the application of this precedent mutatis mutandis was appropriate

To balance the interests of the investigation with the petitioner's right to operate her account, the court reasoned that the disputed amount—as identified by the crime agencies—should be isolated into a fixed deposit (FD), while the remainder of the account is unfrozen

This ensures that the funds remain available for potential recovery if a crime is proven, while preventing indefinite and extra-legal deprivation of the petitioner's access to her funds

The Bank was ordered to place the disputed amount in a fixed deposit, which may only be liquidated upon orders from a competent Judicial Magistrate

The Police/investigative agencies are expected to proceed under the BNSS or relevant law within three months; if they fail to do so, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount kept in the FD after providing intimation to the concerned agency