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

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that her State Bank of India and ICICI Bank accounts had been frozen and requesting that they be restored for operation

Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and the guidelines in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , she sought relief against the account restrictions

The Court identified Rs. 25,714 as the disputed amount

Whether the petitioner’s frozen bank account(s) should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured

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

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

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others , W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024, and the principles in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , order dated 27 July 2026, which addressed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026.

Those principles require that a freeze be proportionate and, where practicable, limited to the suspected amount rather than the entire account; the investigating agency should proceed under the applicable provisions of the BNSS or other relied-upon law, with the disputed amount remaining secured pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate.

The Court applied those decisions mutatis mutandis

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

Applying those authorities, it directed that the identified disputed amount of Rs. 25,714 be placed in a fixed deposit, while the petitioner’s account be unfrozen and permitted to operate

The Court also preserved the bank’s ability to act in accordance with law if it received a complaint concerning another transaction, taking the SOP into account

The amount may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders are passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the fixed-deposit amount under intimation to the police agency.

The petition was disposed of on those terms