Jharkhand HC permits operation of frozen bank account, noting no evidence of illegal funds after 4-year cybercrime probe

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 311 | 2026:JHHC:12286

April 27, 2026 : The High Court of Jharkhand has allowed a petition seeking access to a frozen bank account in a cybercrime case, observing that investigators failed to produce evidence linking the deposited funds to illegal activity even after several years of inquiry.

In its order dated April 27, 2026, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary heard a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Dhiraj Kumar Mandal, a resident of Jamtara district, who had challenged a lower court’s refusal to permit operations in his bank account. The account had been frozen on the instructions of the cyber police in connection with a case registered at Jamtara Cyber Police Station.

The petitioner had approached the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash a February 1, 2022 order passed by the Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara, which denied his request to reopen the account. According to the prosecution, a sum of ₹5.49 lakh deposited in the account was suspected to be proceeds of cybercrime, particularly as the petitioner allegedly had no known legitimate source of income.

However, counsel for Mandal argued that despite the account being frozen since October 2021, the police had not gathered any material to establish that the funds were illicit. It was also submitted that the petitioner had explained the source of the money through a supplementary affidavit filed in April 2024, which remained unchallenged by the State.

After examining the case record, the High Court noted that the investigation had been ongoing for over four years without yielding any concrete evidence to support the allegation that the deposits were ill-gotten. The court held that such prolonged inaction could not justify continued restriction on the petitioner’s access to his own funds.

Allowing the petition in part, the court permitted Mandal to operate his bank account, subject to certain safeguards. He has been directed to furnish an indemnity bond of ₹6 lakh along with two solvent sureties before the trial court. Additionally, he must undertake to redeposit any amount found to be proceeds of crime if so determined in future proceedings.

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on balancing investigative powers with individual financial rights, particularly in cases where allegations remain unsubstantiated over an extended period.

Case Reference : Cr.M.P. No. 733 of 2022, Dhiraj Kumar Mandal @ Dhiraj Manda vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.; Counsels: For the Petitioner – Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate; For the State – Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl. P.P.; For O.P. No. 2 – None.