The court established that in cases of suspected cyber fraud, only the specific disputed amount should be frozen in a bank account, allowing the account holder to operate the remaining balance to prevent undue hardship.

Order

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately de-freeze and restore operational facilities in the petitioner's Savings Bank Account (ACCOUNT NO. 00000044634951051), in State Bank Of India, Branch Beawar,Ajmer, Rajasthan. (IFSC Code SBIN0000618)

B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the action of freezing entire amount for a complaint of Rs. 2000/- approx. assigned to the petitioner's account by the respondent bank, as being arbitrary and illegal.

C. Declare the freezing of the petitioner's account as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of India.

D. The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to operate the said account and carry out regular banking transactions without any hindrance.

Ε. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the 10% interest per annum on the amount in the petitioner's account which has been put on freeze from the date of the freeze till the date of release.

F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restricted from putting the bank account of the petitioner under freeze in future without any just reason and reasonable evidence against the petitioner of being involved in any cyber fraudulent activity.

G. Any other order which this hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.

H. The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Bank of India (Respondent No.1) to keep the disputed amount (the amount which was transferred illegally in the bank account of the petitioner) frozen and allow the petitioner to make transactions from his/its bank account from the remaining balance.

3. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent – Bank has not received the information regarding the exact figure of the disputed amount, which the Investigating Officer/Police alleges to be receipt(s) of the offence, the bank shall send a communication to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, to indicate the amount to be earmarked for lien, while endorsing a copy of the instant order.

4. Upon receipt of such communication/letter, the concerned Investigating Officer/Police shall be under an obligation to apprise the respondent - Bank about the amount to be kept in lien, within a period of seven days of receiving the communication from the respondent - Bank. The respondent – bank shall thereafter do the needful as directed herein above.

5. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent-Bank does not receive any reply from the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, then it shall be duty bound to act in accordance with the instant order.

6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of.