Facts
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking removal of the hold on his Kotak Mahindra Bank account No. 5850062291
Source reference: para. 1He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others and on the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which addressed the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning bank-account holds in cybercrime cases
Source reference: paras. 2, 4The disputed amount identified in this petition was Rs. 2,000
Source reference: para. 6Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the identified disputed amount is secured separately
Source reference: paras. 5–62. Whether the disputed amount should remain secured 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 a bank-account hold.
Source reference: no citationThe Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that a disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which it could be withdrawn by the account holder subject to intimation to the investigating agency
Source reference: para. 3It also applied, mutatis mutandis, Archana, which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and set out a grievance-redressal framework emphasizing proportionate restraints on accounts and preservation of only the amount necessary for investigation
Source reference: paras. 4–5The Court expected the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The Court considered Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable to the petitioner’s case
Source reference: para. 5It identified the disputed amount as Rs. 2,000 and directed that this sum be secured in a fixed deposit, rather than continuing the hold on the petitioner’s account.
Source reference: para. 6The Court also preserved the Bank’s ability to act lawfully if it received a complaint concerning another transaction
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The account was to be unfrozen and the petitioner permitted to operate it; Rs. 2,000 was to remain in a fixed deposit until orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.
If no such orders were passed within that period, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner after informing the police agency
Source reference: paras. 6–7The petition was disposed of.
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
Jabbarul MalikvsKotak Mahindra Bank Greater Kailash Indore Thorugh Its Branch Manager
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
