Kerala High Court allows cybercrime victim to use frozen bank account for ₹1.16 crore fraud

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 28 October 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

On June 10, 2024, the Kerala High Court, in an unspecified case, allowed a cybercrime victim to operate their bank account, which had been frozen due to a ₹1.16 crore fraud. Justice Devan Ramachandran held that freezing the victim's account, which contained their legitimate funds, was disproportionate and not permissible under Section 102 of the CrPC/BNSS.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A bank account belonging to a cybercrime victim, containing their legitimate funds, cannot be frozen under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) if the funds are not proceeds of crime or involved in the commission of the offence. Freezing such an account is disproportionate and causes undue hardship to the victim.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing cybercrime victims whose legitimate accounts are frozen should argue that Section 102 CrPC/Section 105 BNSS does not permit freezing funds not connected to the crime. Litigants should be prepared to demonstrate the legitimate source of funds in their frozen accounts to seek relief from the court.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Victim's legitimate funds cannot be frozen under Section 102 CrPC/Section 105 BNSS.
2Freezing a victim's account is disproportionate if funds are not proceeds of crime.
3Courts can allow victims to operate accounts if funds are proven legitimate.

The Legal Issue The Kerala High Court addressed the legality of freezing a cybercrime victim's bank account under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which corresponds to Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner, a victim of a ₹1.16 crore cyber fraud, had their bank account frozen by the police, despite the funds in the account being their legitimate earnings and not connected to the proceeds of the crime. The core issue was whether the police could freeze a victim's account containing their own funds, thereby causing them severe financial hardship.

Court's Reasoning Justice Devan Ramachandran of the Kerala High Court observed that the petitioner was the victim of the cyber fraud, not a perpetrator. The court noted that the funds in the petitioner's account were their legitimate earnings and had no nexus with the crime committed against them. The court held that freezing such an account under Section 102 CrPC (or Section 105 BNSS) was disproportionate and caused undue hardship to the victim. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 102 CrPC is to seize property that is suspected to have been stolen or is involved in the commission of an offence, not to freeze the legitimate funds of a victim. The court concluded that the police action was not permissible under the law.

What Follows The Kerala High Court directed the police to permit the petitioner to operate their bank account. The court clarified that the police could continue their investigation into the cyber fraud but could not keep the victim's legitimate funds frozen. Counsel should confirm whether CrPC or BNSS applies based on the date of the proceeding.