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

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, including removal of the hold or lien on its Yes Bank account.

Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, the petitioner sought release of the account.

The Court identified ₹30,00,000 as the disputed amount and considered whether the account could be operated while that sum remained secured.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen and permitted to operate while the disputed amount is separately secured.

Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, and on what terms it may be released.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against an account freeze.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that disputed funds be kept in fixed deposits and made their continued retention dependent on timely recourse to the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

It also applied Archana, including the principle that account freezes should be proportionate and that the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure dated 10.04.2026 provides a grievance-redressal framework for accounts held through the NCRP-CFCFRMS mechanism.

The Court referred to action under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered, mutatis mutandis, by Malcolm Murayis and Archana.

Applying those decisions, it balanced preservation of the disputed funds against the petitioner’s ability to conduct banking operations: the ₹30,00,000 disputed amount was to be placed in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen and made operable.

The Court also directed that any further complaint concerning another transaction be addressed in accordance with law and the SOP.

Yes Bank was directed to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit its operation, while keeping ₹30,00,000 in a fixed deposit.

That amount may be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioner may withdraw it under intimation to the Police agency.