Banks must unfreeze accounts while retaining a lien only over the identified suspicious amount.

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to unfreeze his bank account while retaining a lien over the allegedly suspicious amount of ₹1,000.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors. and the guidelines concerning frozen bank accounts set out in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

The Court held that those decisions applied mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount of ₹1,000 is separately secured.

Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, and what should follow if no such order is passed within the specified period.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where a bank-account freeze requires judicial intervention.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that disputed funds be kept in fixed deposits pending action by the competent Magistrate, with release to the account holders if the required proceedings were not taken within the specified period.

It also applied Archana, including the principle that restraint over a bank account should be proportionate and, where practicable, limited to the suspected amount; the relevant Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 provides a grievance-redressal framework for account holds connected with cybercrime complaints.

The Court directed the police to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

Since the suspicious amount identified in the petition was ₹1,000, the Court considered the approach in Malcolm Murayis and the proportionality and account-freezing framework in Archana applicable to the case.

It therefore separated the disputed amount from the rest of the account: the ₹1,000 was to be placed in a fixed deposit, while the petitioner’s account was to be unfrozen and made operable.

The fixed deposit would remain subject to an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such an order, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner after informing the police agency.

The disputed ₹1,000 was to be kept in a fixed deposit, to be liquidated only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the petitioner could withdraw it under intimation to the police agency.

The bank remained free to act in accordance with law and the SOP if another complaint concerning a different transaction was received.