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

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 directing State Bank of India to remove a hold of ₹6,426.15 from her account and to permit her to operate the account.

She also challenged the freezing action as arbitrary and contrary to the BNSS and constitutional protections.

Relying on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, and *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.*, she submitted that the principles in those decisions applied to her case.

The Court considered whether the disputed amount should remain secured while the account itself was released.

Whether the petitioner’s account should remain frozen when the disputed amount identified in the petition was ₹6,426.15.

Whether the disputed amount should be retained in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, while permitting the petitioner to operate the account.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against unlawful or disproportionate restraints on a bank account.

The Court applied *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, which directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits and permitted their withdrawal if the competent Magistrate did not pass orders within three months.

It also applied *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.*, which discussed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10.04.2026 and the principle that account restraints should be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount, and processed through the prescribed grievance mechanism.

Although the petitioner invoked Sections 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, the Court did not separately determine their application; it directed the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered the cited decisions applicable *mutatis mutandis*.

It therefore treated the identified ₹6,426.15 as the amount requiring protection, rather than continuing a freeze on the petitioner’s entire account.

Consistent with *Malcolm Murayis* and the proportionality approach discussed in *Archana*, it directed that the disputed sum be placed in a fixed deposit while the rest of the account was unfrozen.

The police agency was expected to approach the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if it failed to do so, the fixed-deposit amount could also be withdrawn, with intimation to the police agency.

SBI was directed to keep ₹6,426.15 in a fixed deposit and unfreeze the petitioner’s account so she could operate it.

The fixed deposit may be liquidated only after orders by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioner may withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

If the Bank receives a complaint concerning another entry, it may act in accordance with law and the SOP discussed in *Archana*.