Lokesh vs. Bank Of Maharashtra Through Branch Manager

Held

The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 5,710/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The petitioner's bank account was to be unfrozen, and the petitioner permitted to operate it. The FD would be liquidated only after orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, with the expectation that the police agency would proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions. If the police agency failed to do so within the stipulated time, the amount in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. The Court also noted that if other complaints were received by the Bank, it could take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in the Archana case. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Lokesh, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account (Account No. 60463286542, IFSC: MAHB0001190) maintained with Bank of Maharashtra, Indore. The account was frozen based on intimation from cyber cells of police stations alleging involvement in cyber fraud. The petitioner contended that he was not notified and was lawfully conducting his business, suggesting a third party might have used his account. He relied on previous High Court judgments, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No.1100 of 2024) and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (dated 27.07.2026), which dealt with similar issues of frozen bank accounts due to cyber fraud allegations and the implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without prior notice and opportunity to be heard is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. (as argued in Malcolm Murayis)? 2. Whether the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10.04.2026, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, governing the grievance redressal mechanism for frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases, should be applied to de-freeze the petitioner's account, considering the alleged disputed amount of Rs. 5,710/- is a small fraction of the total balance (as discussed in Archana)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his bank account was frozen without notice and that he was lawfully conducting his business. He relied on the Malcolm Murayis judgment, which directed banks to keep disputed amounts in fixed deposits and allow withdrawal of the remaining balance, and the Archana judgment, which emphasized adherence to the SOP and prompt resolution of grievances. The petitioner sought the unfrozen operation of his account. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state authorities. However, it notes that banks freeze accounts based on instructions from cyber cell police stations and are bound by such directives. The judgments cited by the petitioner address the procedure to be followed by investigating agencies and banks in such situations.