Cyber-fraud account freezes must be limited to disputed amounts, with accounts otherwise unfrozen.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of a fixed deposit of ₹5,00,000, permission to operate her savings account, and restoration of her Retailer ID

Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others and the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, she sought relief concerning the disputed amount and the restraint on her account

The Court considered those decisions applicable to her case

1. Whether the disputed amount of ₹5,00,000 should be retained in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to operate her bank account while the disputed amount is secured

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief in relation to the restraint on a bank account.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided 26 April 2024), under which the disputed amount may be kept in a fixed deposit pending proceedings before the competent Magistrate and may be released if the required judicial order is not obtained within the stipulated period

It also applied Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (order dated 27 July 2026), which discusses the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 and the principles of proportionality and time-bound review in freezing bank accounts

The Court referred to the requirement that the police proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law

Having found the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable mutatis mutandis, the Court directed that the disputed ₹5,00,000 be preserved in a fixed deposit while allowing the petitioner to operate her account

It further provided that the fixed deposit could be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency

The Court did not separately determine the merits of the underlying complaint.

The bank was directed to keep ₹5,00,000 in a fixed deposit and unfreeze the petitioner’s bank account so that she could operate it.

The fixed deposit was to remain subject to an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such an order, the petitioner could withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency