Banks must preserve only the disputed amount and allow the account holder to operate the account.

The petitioner challenged the hold on ₹12,519 in her HDFC Bank account and sought removal of the hold and permission to operate the account.

She contended that the account had been frozen without compliance with Sections 106(3) and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Relying on Malcolm Murayis and Archana, she sought de-freezing of the account.

The Court considered those decisions applicable to her case.

Whether the disputed amount of ₹12,519 should remain subject to a hold, or be secured separately while allowing the petitioner to operate her account.

Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen in light of the principles in Malcolm Murayis and the SOP and guidelines discussed in Archana.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., which directed that a disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and permitted its liquidation if the police did not obtain orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

It also applied Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionate account restraints, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, and time-bound grievance redressal.

The petitioner had invoked Sections 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, but the Court did not independently determine their application.

The Court held that the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.

It therefore directed that the disputed ₹12,519 be placed in a fixed deposit rather than maintaining a hold over the account as a whole.

The amount would remain secured pending orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders, the petitioner could withdraw it after notifying the police agency.

The Court also allowed the petitioner to operate the account, while leaving the Bank free to act according to law and the SOP if another complaint concerning a different transaction arose.

HDFC Bank was directed to keep ₹12,519 in a fixed deposit, subject to the three-month period for the police agency to obtain orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate; if no such orders were obtained, the petitioner could withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

The petitioner’s account was to be unfrozen and she permitted to operate it.