Jatin Baurasi vs. State Bank Of INDIA Through Branch Manager

Held

The High Court held that the decisions in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount mentioned in the petition should be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If the bank receives any other complaint regarding a different entry, it can take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in *Archana*. The disputed amount in FD shall be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. It is expected that the police agency will proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other applicable law. If this does not happen within three months, the amount in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. Crucially, the bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner will be permitted to operate the account. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Jatin Baurasi, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of a hold/freeze/lien placed on his bank account (Account No. 44182428305) by the State Bank of India. The freeze was reportedly initiated based on a complaint. The petitioner argued that his situation is covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others* and *Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others*. These prior cases dealt with bank accounts frozen due to allegations of cyber fraud, where the account holders claimed lawful business operations and lack of notice. The petitioner sought to operate his bank account while potentially keeping disputed amounts in fixed deposits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent bank to immediately remove the hold/freeze/lien placed upon the petitioner's bank account, considering the petitioner's claim that his case is covered by prior High Court judgments dealing with similar freezes on bank accounts due to alleged cyber fraud. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the present case is squarely covered by the decisions in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana*. In *Malcolm Murayis*, the court noted that petitioners were engaged in lawful trading of virtual currency, their accounts were frozen without notice, and the police had not complied with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. In *Archana*, the court discussed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal in cyber crime cases involving frozen bank accounts, emphasizing a balance between investigation needs and citizens' rights. The petitioner likely argued that the principles and directions in these cases should be applied to his situation, allowing him to operate his account. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, it notes that in *Malcolm Murayis*, the respondent banks submitted they froze accounts only upon instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by such directives. The *Archana* judgment discusses the role of investigating agencies and the SOP.