Banks must unfreeze accounts while retaining only the disputed cyber-fraud amount in fixed deposit.

The petitioner sought de-freezing of his HDFC Bank current account, challenging a hold of ₹1,574 said to be connected with a disputed transaction. He also sought directions concerning the disputed amount and alleged that the account had been completely frozen without compliance with Sections 106(3) and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and constitutional requirements.

Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others , the petitioner argued that the disputed amount should be secured separately while he was permitted to operate the account.

The Court also considered the guidelines on cybercrime-related bank freezes set out in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , including the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain completely frozen when the identified disputed amount was ₹1,574.

Whether the disputed amount could instead be secured in a fixed deposit while the petitioner was permitted to operate the account.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis , which directed that a disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending appropriate orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate, with withdrawal permitted if the police agency did not proceed in accordance with law within three months.

It also applied Archana and the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026, which require bank-account freezes in cybercrime cases to be proportionate to the suspected proceeds, favouring a lien or partial freeze where sufficient and requiring the authorities to follow the prescribed grievance and procedural mechanisms.

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

The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered mutatis mutandis by Malcolm Murayis and Archana .

Applying those decisions to the identified disputed amount of ₹1,574, it concluded that the amount could be preserved separately in a fixed deposit rather than requiring the entire account to remain frozen. The petitioner could therefore operate the account, while the disputed sum remained secured pending action by the police agency in accordance with law.

The disputed amount may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if the police agency does not proceed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount, under intimation to that agency.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.