Sudip Mandal vs. Hdfc Bank LTD. Through Its Branch Manager

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Following these precedents, the Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 1574/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further stipulated that if any other complaint is received by the bank regarding other entries, the bank may take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government. The disputed amount would be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. Crucially, the Court directed that the petitioner's bank account shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account.

Facts

The petitioner, Sudip Mandal, filed a writ petition seeking to de-freeze his bank account held with HDFC Bank, from which an amount of Rs. 1574/- was held. The petitioner contended that the freezing of his account was illegal and unconstitutional, as it was done without complying with Section 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, 2023, and without following Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the High Court in similar matters, specifically the case of Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others, and a subsequent order in Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which dealt with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without adhering to the provisions of Section 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, 2023, and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, is illegal and unconstitutional? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the freezing of his account was arbitrary and violated his constitutional rights. He contended that the action was taken without proper notice or adherence to statutory procedures. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in Malcolm Murayis and Archana cases, which emphasized the need for due process and adherence to SOPs when freezing bank accounts, especially in cyber crime-related matters. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the context implies that the freezing was initiated by cyber crime agencies, and the banks acted on their instructions. The court's decision was influenced by the established SOP and previous judicial pronouncements.