Cyber-fraud account freezes must be limited to the disputed amount, leaving the remaining account accessible.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking de-freezing of his bank account.

Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors. and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., he sought relief in light of the applicable bank-account freezing procedure and grievance mechanism.

The Court identified Rs. 54,665 as the disputed amount and considered whether the account could be operated while that amount was secured.

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

Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, and what should follow if no such order is passed within the specified period.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief in cases involving the freezing of a bank account.

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits pending orders by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which it could be withdrawn by the petitioners under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

The SOP dated 10 April 2026 and the guidelines discussed in Archana require a proportionate response to account freezes, including securing the suspected amount where that is sufficient rather than unnecessarily restraining legitimate account operations.

The Court applied those decisions mutatis mutandis to the present case.

The Court considered the prior directions in Malcolm Murayis alongside the SOP and guidelines discussed in Archana, and held that they applied to the petitioner’s case.

It addressed the suspected sum by directing that Rs. 54,665 be placed in a fixed deposit, while allowing the petitioner to operate the account. This secured the disputed amount without continuing the freeze over the entire account.

The Court also provided that, if no order was passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, the fixed-deposit amount could be withdrawn under intimation to the police agency.

The petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen, and he was permitted to operate it.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.