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. 1Relying on *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana*, the petitioner sought release of the account for operation.
Source reference: paras. 2–4The Court considered the earlier decision in *Malcolm Murayis* and the SOP-based guidelines discussed in *Archana*.
Source reference: paras. 3–5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s account could be unfrozen while the disputed amount of ₹1,170 was separately secured.
Source reference: paras. 1, 5–62. 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. 6Law 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. 3The 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. 4The investigating agency is expected to proceed under the applicable provisions of the BNSS or other relevant law.
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The Court held that the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applied *mutatis mutandis*.
Source reference: para. 5It 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. 6Holding
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. 6The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: paras. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
Atiquiddin ShaikhvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
