Ritik vs. State Of M.P.

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana were applicable to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 1,000/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). If any other complaints were received by the bank regarding other entries, the bank was permitted to take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP. The disputed amount was to be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the police agency failed to proceed according to law within this period, the amount kept in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency. Crucially, the Court ordered that the petitioner's bank account be unfrozen, and the petitioner be permitted to operate it. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ritik, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account (Account No. 5847816074) maintained with Respondent No. 2 (a bank), which had a lien placed on an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner argued that his case was covered by 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). In the Malcolm Murayis case, petitioners involved in crypto trading had their accounts frozen based on cyber crime allegations, and the court had directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits pending judicial orders. The Archana case discussed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievance redressal regarding frozen bank accounts in cyber crime cases, emphasizing a time-bound mechanism and the need to balance investigation with the account holder's rights.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the power to direct the release and defreezing of a bank account where a lien has been placed on a disputed amount due to allegations of cyber fraud, considering the petitioner's reliance on previous High Court judgments and the newly framed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for cyber crime cases? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his situation is identical to the cases decided in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, where similar reliefs were granted. He argued that the freezing of his account, with a lien on a small amount, was disproportionate and that the procedures outlined in the SOP should be followed. He relied on the principle that bank accounts should not be frozen mechanically and that a balance must be struck between investigation and the right to conduct business. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State or other respondents beyond the bank's submission in the cited Malcolm Murayis case, which stated they froze accounts only upon instructions from cyber cell police stations and were bound by those instructions. The judgment implicitly addresses the State's role through the discussion of the SOP and the need for police agencies to proceed according to law.