Madhya Pradesh High Court

A bank account must be unfrozen when the disputed amount can be secured separately in a fixed deposit.

Atiquiddin Shaikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A bank account must be unfrozen when the disputed amount can be secured separately in a fixed deposit.. Atiquiddin Shaikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought a direction to ICICI Bank to unfreeze bank account No. 762201501260, while retaining ₹1,170—the disputed amount—in a fixed deposit, if required.

Source reference: para. 1

Relying on *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana*, the petitioner sought release of the account for operation.

Source reference: paras. 2–4

The Court considered the earlier decision in *Malcolm Murayis* and the SOP-based guidelines discussed in *Archana*.

Source reference: paras. 3–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner’s account could be unfrozen while the disputed amount of ₹1,170 was separately secured.

Source reference: paras. 1, 5–6

2. Whether the disputed amount could remain secured in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

Source reference: para. 6
03

Law Applied

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant appropriate relief concerning the freezing of a bank account. *Malcolm Murayis* supports securing the identified disputed amount in a fixed deposit rather than continuing a broader account freeze, subject to the competent Magistrate’s orders within the prescribed period.

Source reference: para. 3

The SOP dated 10 April 2026 and the guidelines discussed in *Archana* require account-freezing measures to be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient, and subject to a time-bound grievance mechanism and appropriate legal oversight.

Source reference: para. 4

The investigating agency is expected to proceed under the applicable provisions of the BNSS or other relevant law.

Source reference: para. 6
04

Reasoning

The Court held that the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applied *mutatis mutandis*.

Source reference: para. 5

It therefore treated the identified ₹1,170 as the amount requiring protection, rather than maintaining a freeze on the petitioner’s entire account. The balance of the account could be released for operation, while the disputed sum remained secured pending appropriate orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

The Court directed that ₹1,170 be kept in a fixed deposit and that the petitioner’s bank account be unfrozen and made available for operation.

The fixed deposit may be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the petitioner may withdraw the amount after notifying the police agency. The Bank may take action in accordance with law and the SOP if it receives a complaint concerning another transaction.

Source reference: para. 6

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Source reference: paras. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Atiquiddin ShaikhvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment