Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis (supra) and Archana (supra) were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 2,740/- mentioned in the petition be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further stipulated that if any other complaint was received by the bank regarding other entries, it was open for the bank to 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 were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, with the expectation that the police agency would proceed in accordance with law. If this did not happen, the amount kept in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. Crucially, the Court directed that the bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner be permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Kundan Patel, filed a writ petition seeking to remove a hold/freeze on his bank account maintained with the State Bank of India. The freeze was reportedly placed based on an intimation from cyber cells of various police stations alleging the account was involved in cyber fraud. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of any such involvement, was conducting a lawful business, and had not received any notice. He argued that the freeze was imposed without following due process, specifically Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The State Bank of India submitted that it acted solely on instructions from the cyber cell police stations. The Court referred to previous judgments in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which dealt with similar issues of bank account freezes in cyber crime cases and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the freeze on the petitioner's bank account, imposed by the State Bank of India based on intimation from cyber cells of police stations, is lawful and in compliance with procedural requirements, particularly Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and the SOP dated 10.04.2026? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the freeze was arbitrary and imposed without issuing any notice to him, violating principles of natural justice. He contended that the cyber cells failed to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. by not informing the concerned Magistrate about the seizure. He relied on the principles laid down in the case of Malcolm Murayis (supra) and the SOP, arguing that his legitimate business operations were being unduly hampered. Revenue/State's arguments: The State Bank of India argued that it was bound by the instructions received from the investigating authorities (cyber cells) and had no independent power to freeze accounts. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the cyber crime cells or the State, beyond the bank's submission.
Sections Cited
Section 102
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: (1) to direct the respondents to remove the hold/freeze on the petitioner's Bank Account No.36153378946, IFSC Code SBIN0000001, maintained with the State Bank of India of the petitioner and permit to continue his Bank Account service without restriction. (2) Issue such other orders, writ, and direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice in favor of petitioner. (3) direct respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the Savings Bank Account or pass such interim direction as this Court deems fit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.