Banks must unfreeze accounts while securing disputed amounts in fixed deposits pending Magistrate orders.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to unfreeze his State Bank of India savings account and permit its normal operation.

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and on the later decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others*, which discussed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026 for grievances concerning bank accounts put on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS.

The Court considered the earlier decisions applicable to the petitioner’s case.

Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured, consistently with the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana*.

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

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning the operation of a bank account.

Applying *Malcolm Murayis*, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit and made subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders, the amount may be withdrawn by the petitioner after intimation to the police agency.

The Court also applied *Archana* and the SOP dated 10 April 2026, including its approach that account freezes should be proportionate and that banks and investigating agencies should follow the prescribed grievance and legal procedures.

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

The Court concluded that the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applied *mutatis mutandis* to this case.

It balanced preservation of the disputed amount with the petitioner’s ability to use the account by directing that the disputed amount be placed in a fixed deposit while the account itself was unfrozen.

The investigating agency was given three months to seek orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate; if it did not do so, the amount in the fixed deposit could be withdrawn by the petitioner after notifying the police agency.

The bank was directed to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit its operation, while keeping the disputed amount in a fixed deposit.

That amount may be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, it may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.

The bank may take action on any further complaint concerning another transaction in accordance with law and the SOP.