Monirul Saha vs. Hdfc Bank

Held

The Court held that the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" are applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amounts of ₹49,750 and ₹49,751 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaint is received by the Bank regarding other entries, the Bank can take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP. The disputed amount shall be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If no such orders are passed within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner will be permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Monirul Saha, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his savings bank account with HDFC Bank. The account was frozen, allegedly due to its involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioner sought an alternative relief to keep only the disputed amounts of ₹49,750 and ₹49,751 under lien, allowing him to operate the remaining balance. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court judgment in "Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others" (W.P. No. 1100/2024) and a subsequent order in "Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others" (dated 27.07.2026) which discussed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for freezing bank accounts in cyber crime cases. The previous judgment in Malcolm Murayis involved similar issues of bank accounts being frozen based on cyber cell intimations without prior notice to the account holders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bank account, frozen based on cyber cell intimations, should be unfrozen or have only the disputed amounts kept under lien, considering the principles laid down in "Malcolm Murayis" and the SOP for cyber crime cases? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his case is squarely covered by the decision in "Malcolm Murayis," where similar reliefs were granted. He argued that he was not provided with any notice regarding involvement in any offense and that his business activities were lawful. He further relied on the SOP which provides a structured procedure and timelines for grievance redressal concerning frozen bank accounts. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. The arguments presented by the bank in the "Malcolm Murayis" case were that they froze accounts only upon instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by such directives.