Now Reading: High courts back swift but proportionate bank freezes in cybercrime cases
-
01
High courts back swift but proportionate bank freezes in cybercrime cases
High courts back swift but proportionate bank freezes in cybercrime cases
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that banks cannot freeze an entire account when a cybercrime probe concerns a specific sum. In a case involving Rs 36,000, the Lucknow bench ordered banks…
The Story in Brief
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that banks cannot freeze an entire account when a cybercrime probe concerns a specific sum. In a case involving Rs 36,000, the Lucknow bench ordered banks to restore access to funds beyond that amount while retaining a lien over the disputed sum. It directed investigating officers to provide crime details, the basis for restraint and the amount involved.
The Karnataka High Court, however, said police need not obtain a magistrate’s permission before imposing an immediate debit freeze. In State of Karnataka v Jar Gold Retail, Justice M Nagaprasanna distinguished seizure under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita from attachment under Section 107. The rulings together support quick intervention, but reject indefinite or excessive restraint.
The Indian Opinion
The lazy reading is that courts have either empowered police to freeze everything or made cybercrime investigations impractical. Neither is accurate. Karnataka protects the speed needed to stop money moving through mule accounts, while Allahabad protects legitimate funds from being trapped over a small disputed credit. The real test is whether agencies record the amount, inform the magistrate and provide a time-bound grievance route. Banks should be judged on how quickly they release the undisputed balance.
Sources (2): rediff.com, barandbench.com
This story was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 2 sources.
