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

The petitioner sought a writ directing DCB Bank to unfreeze its current account and permit it to operate the account.

Counsel submitted that the case was covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and relied also on the guidelines concerning bank-account freezes set out in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.

The Court recorded that the disputed amount was ₹4,01,934.14.

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured.

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

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

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and made subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

The guidelines in Archana, based on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026, require account freezes to be proportionate and, where practicable, limited to the suspected amount; they also require action in accordance with the prescribed grievance mechanism and timelines.

Those guidelines recognize the need to balance the account holder’s rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A with legitimate investigative needs.

The Court held that the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied mutatis mutandis.

It balanced the need to preserve the identified disputed amount against the petitioner’s ability to conduct banking transactions, directing that only ₹4,01,934.14 be placed in a fixed deposit and that the account otherwise be unfrozen.

The fixed deposit may be liquidated only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such an order, the petitioner may withdraw the amount after informing the police agency.

The Bank may act in accordance with law and the SOP if it receives a complaint concerning another transaction.