Topic
Cybercrime in India refers to offenses committed using digital devices or networks, governed by the IT Act, 2000, and procedural provisions like BNSS, with courts addressing issues like account freezes, investigation protocols, and bail conditions.
Rajasthan High Court sets a precedent by requiring bail applicants under BNSS Section 483 to disclose digital assets, social media accounts, and submit to regular monitoring. This ruling expands bail jurisprudence to address cyber-enabled offences, impacting accused persons facing digital evidence-based prosecutions.
The Kerala High Court ruled that banks cannot freeze accounts based solely on police requisition; they must follow established SOPs for cybercrime-related freezes and comply with the Abdul Azeez guidelines, ensuring a quantified grievance mechanism and proportional relief. This binds all financial institutions to procedural safeguards under Article 300A and BNSS, preventing arbitrary deprivation of property.
The Kerala High Court ruled that banks cannot freeze accounts based solely on police requisition; lien must be restricted to the exact amount claimed and only imposed if there is specific suspicion of cybercrime or money mule activity. This protects innocent account holders from arbitrary financial disruption and reinforces due process under Article 300A and BNSS Section 106.
Rajasthan High Court rules that issuance of a few SIM cards without evidence of proceeds of crime, coupled with clean antecedents, warrants bail under BNSS Section 483. The judgment distinguishes between technical involvement and substantive criminal liability, setting a precedent for bail in cyber fraud cases with peripheral participation.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that prolonged police inaction on cybercrime complaints violates natural justice and the State’s constitutional duty to investigate. The Court directed the police to conclude the preliminary enquiry within one month, emphasizing that delays undermine complainants' rights and erode public trust in law enforcement.
Punjab & Haryana HC enforces the Supreme Court’s binding directive, mandating immediate CBI takeover of cybercrime investigations under the IT Act, 2000, irrespective of whether the investigation is ongoing or a charge sheet has been filed. This ruling underscores the primacy of central agency intervention in IT Act offences, impacting all state governments and law enforcement agencies.
Rajasthan High Court rules that freezing bank accounts without distinguishing disputed and legitimate funds violates proportionality under Article 21. Banks must allow transactions from non-disputed balances pending police clarification, balancing investigative needs with financial rights.
Kerala High Court holds that banks cannot freeze entire accounts based on police requisitions; lien must be limited to specified amount under BNSS and Article 300A.