Ayush Bamaniya vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 84,000/- be kept in a fixed deposit. The petitioner's bank account was to be unfrozen, allowing him to operate it. The Court further stipulated that the fixed deposit amount would be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. It was expected that the police agency would proceed in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other applicable law. If the police agency failed to act within the stipulated time, the amount in fixed deposit could be withdrawn by the petitioner upon intimation to the police agency. The Court also noted that if any other complaint was received by the bank regarding other entries, the bank could take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Government, as discussed in the Archana case. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ayush Bamaniya, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his bank account held with Punjab National Bank (Account No. 0859101700009783), except for a disputed amount of Rs. 84,000/-. The petitioner argued that his case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, 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). These judgments dealt with the freezing of bank accounts due to allegations of cyber fraud. The petitioner contended that he was engaged in lawful business and that the freezing of the entire account was disproportionate. The State was represented by the Government Advocate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can direct the unfreezing of a bank account, except for a disputed amount, when the account has been frozen based on intimation from cyber cell police stations alleging involvement in cyber fraud, and if so, what procedure should be followed? (Relates to Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the freezing of his entire bank account was unjustified, especially when the disputed amount was a small fraction of the total balance. He relied on the principles laid down in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, which allowed for the release of funds while keeping the disputed amount in fixed deposit, pending further orders from a competent authority. He emphasized that he had not received any notice regarding his involvement in any offense and was carrying out his business lawfully. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the State/Revenue. However, the context implies that the State's position would be to uphold the freezing of the account to facilitate investigation into alleged cyber fraud.