Smt. Amna Baghel vs. State Bank Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the decisions rendered in Malcolm Murayis (supra) and Archana (supra) are applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 25,714/- shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaint is received by the bank regarding another entry, the bank is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in the Archana case. The disputed amount shall be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, as expected from the Police agency to proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law. Failing this, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. The bank account of the petitioner shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Amna Baghel, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze her bank accounts held with State Bank of India and ICICI Bank, which were frozen by the respondents. The petitioner contended that her case was covered by previous High Court judgments in similar matters. The previous judgments, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, dealt with the freezing of bank accounts due to alleged involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioner argued that she had not received any notice and was conducting her business lawfully, with only a small transaction potentially linked to fraud. The State Bank of India stated that the accounts were frozen on instructions from cyber cell police stations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts by the respondent banks, based on instructions from cyber cell police stations, is lawful and justified, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim of lawful business operations and lack of notice? (Section 102 Cr.P.C. and principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the procedure followed by the investigating agencies and banks in freezing the accounts complies with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the principles laid down in previous High Court judgments? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that her case is squarely covered by the decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, where similar reliefs were granted. She contended that she was not given any notice and was carrying out her business lawfully, suggesting that a third party might have used her account for fraudulent transactions. She relied on the principle that freezing of accounts should not be done mechanically and that the investigating agencies failed to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. by not informing the Magistrate. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (Banks) argued that they froze the accounts solely on the instructions of various cyber cell police stations and are bound by those instructions. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State or police agencies beyond the banks' submissions.