Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banking and Finance LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Banks must unfreeze accounts while retaining disputed sums in fixed deposits pending magistrate orders.

Gourav Behere vs State Bank Of India Through Branch Manager

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Banks must unfreeze accounts while retaining disputed sums in fixed deposits pending magistrate orders.. Gourav Behere vs State Bank Of India Through Branch Manager. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought removal of a ₹60,000 lien marked on his bank account, alleging that the respondents’ action was improper

Source reference: para. 1

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, W.P. Nos. 1100 and 1185 of 2024, in which the High Court had directed banks to place disputed sums in fixed deposits pending action by the investigating agencies.

Source reference: paras. 2–3

The Court held that the earlier decision applied *mutatis mutandis* to the petitioner’s case.

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the ₹60,000 lien removed, subject to safeguarding the disputed amount

Source reference: paras. 1, 4–5

Whether the bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount remained secured pending action by the police agency

Source reference: para. 5
03

Law Applied

The Court applied its decision in *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that a disputed sum identified by cybercrime agencies be kept in a fixed deposit, with liquidation dependent on an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such order is passed, the amount may be withdrawn by the account holder after informing the cybercrime agencies.

Source reference: para. 3

In the present case, the Court referred to the police agency proceeding under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon.

Source reference: para. 5
04

Reasoning

Finding the earlier *Malcolm Murayis* decision applicable *mutatis mutandis*, the Court adopted its protective arrangement for the disputed funds.

Source reference: para. 4

It directed that the ₹60,000 identified by the crime agencies be secured in a fixed deposit, while requiring the police agency to proceed in accordance with law and obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If it failed to do so, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the police agency; the rest of the account was to be unfrozen as expeditiously as possible.

Source reference: para. 5
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of.

The bank was directed to keep ₹60,000 in a fixed deposit subject to the three-month Magistrate-order condition and, failing such an order, permit withdrawal after intimation to the police agency. The petitioner’s bank account was also to be unfrozen expeditiously.

Source reference: paras. 5–6
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

Gourav BeherevsState Bank Of India Through Branch Manager

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment