Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banking and Finance LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Banks must unfreeze accounts while preserving only the disputed amount in fixed deposit.

Jabbarul Malik vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Greater Kailash Indore Thorugh Its Branch Manager

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Banks must unfreeze accounts while preserving only the disputed amount in fixed deposit.. Jabbarul Malik vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Greater Kailash Indore Thorugh Its Branch Manager. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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. 1

He 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, 4

The disputed amount identified in this petition was Rs. 2,000

Source reference: para. 6
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the identified disputed amount is secured separately

Source reference: paras. 5–6

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

Source reference: para. 6
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: no citation

The 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in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which it could be withdrawn by the account holder subject to intimation to the investigating agency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. 3

It 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. 4–5

The Court expected the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law

Source reference: para. 6
04

Reasoning

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

Source reference: para. 5

It 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. 6

The Court also preserved the Bank’s ability to act lawfully if it received a complaint concerning another transaction

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

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. 6–7

The petition was disposed of.

Source reference: paras. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Jabbarul MalikvsKotak Mahindra Bank Greater Kailash Indore Thorugh Its Branch Manager

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment