Banks must unfreeze accounts while securing disputed cyber-fraud amounts in fixed deposits.

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to unfreeze its current account with Bank of India and release a lien of ₹4,69,919.

It relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and the subsequent decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., which discussed the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning accounts held through the NCRP-CFCFRMS mechanism.

The Court held that the principles in those decisions applied to the petitioner’s case.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen in full when the identified disputed amount was ₹4,69,919.

Whether the disputed amount should be secured by a fixed deposit and, if so, subject to what conditions it could be released.

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

The principles in Malcolm Murayis support securing the disputed amount separately and permitting its release if the competent Magistrate does not pass an order within the specified period.

The SOP dated 10 April 2026, and the guidelines discussed in Archana, require freezing measures to be proportionate and generally limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient to safeguard the investigation; the guidelines also require adherence to the prescribed grievance and investigation procedures.

The Court further referred to proceedings by the police under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

Applying Malcolm Murayis and Archana mutatis mutandis, the Court directed that the identified sum of ₹4,69,919 be preserved in a fixed deposit rather than maintaining a freeze on the petitioner’s entire account.

The police were expected to proceed in accordance with the applicable law and obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If no such order was passed within that period, the fixed-deposit amount could also be withdrawn by the petitioner, under intimation to the police agency.

The Court also left the Bank free to act lawfully if it received a complaint concerning another transaction, having regard to the SOP.

The petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen and the petitioner permitted to operate it; ₹4,69,919 was to remain in a fixed deposit pending an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which the petitioner could withdraw that amount under intimation to the police agency.