Rajdeep vs. Branch Manager

Held

The Court held that the decisions in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" were applicable to the present case. Following the principles laid down in these judgments and the SOP, the Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 4,15,681.29 (across 5 transactions) be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further directed that the petitioner's bank account be unfrozen, allowing them to operate it. The FD would only be liquidated 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 If the police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount in FD may be withdrawn by the petitioner, with intimation to the police agency. The Court also noted that 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajdeep, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze their bank account. The account had been frozen by the respondent bank based on intimations from cyber cells of various police stations, alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioner contended that they were engaged in lawful trading of crypto and virtual currency and had not received any notice regarding involvement in any offense. They argued that the frozen amount, Rs. 4,15,681.29 across 5 transactions, was a small portion of their total account balance. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments in "Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others" and "Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others", which dealt with similar issues of bank account freezing due to cyber fraud allegations and the implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by the respondent bank, based on intimations from cyber cells, is legally sustainable without proper notice or adherence to due process, particularly concerning the petitioner's right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for grievance redressal in cyber crime cases involving frozen bank accounts, should be applied in this case? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their bank account was frozen without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard. They contended that they were engaged in legitimate business and that the freezing of the entire account was disproportionate, especially when the alleged suspicious amount was a small fraction of the total balance. They relied on the principles laid down in "Malcolm Murayis" and "Archana" judgments, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach and adherence to the SOP. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the bank's submission was that they froze the accounts only upon instructions from the cyber cell police stations and were bound by those instructions.