A bank account must be unfrozen while the disputed amount is secured in fixed deposit.

Saksham Traders, through its proprietor, sought a writ directing IDBI Bank to unfreeze its current account and permit its operation.

The petitioner relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026 for grievances concerning accounts held through the NCRP-CFCFRMS.

The Court identified Rs. 2,97,073 as the disputed amount and directed that it be kept in a fixed deposit while the account was unfrozen.

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen and made operable while preserving the disputed amount of Rs. 2,97,073.

2. Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant appropriate relief concerning a bank-account freeze.

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be secured in a fixed deposit and permitted its release if the competent Judicial Magistrate did not pass orders within three months under the applicable law.

Archana applied the MHA SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionate restraint, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, and time-bound grievance redressal; it also recognized the need to balance investigation with the account holder’s rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A.

The present Court held that those decisions applied mutatis mutandis.

The Court considered the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable to the petitioner’s case.

It therefore balanced the need to preserve the identified disputed sum against the petitioner’s ability to operate its account: the disputed amount was to be secured in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.

The Court also left open the Bank’s ability to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

The disputed amount may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioner may withdraw the amount upon informing the police agency.

The Bank may take appropriate action, consistent with law and the SOP, if it receives a complaint concerning another entry.