Cyber-fraud account freezes must be proportionate, allowing operation while securing only disputed funds.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking de-freezing of his bank account.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , which address bank-account freezes arising from cybercrime complaints and the applicable grievance mechanism.

The Court identified Rs. 10,298.98 as the disputed amount in this case.

It also recorded that Rs. 23,000 had been frozen by Punjab National Bank, which was not a party to the petition.

1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be de-frozen 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.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where a bank account has been frozen in connection with a cybercrime complaint.

In Malcolm Murayis , the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and permitted liquidation only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the amount could be withdrawn by the account holder under intimation to the police.

In Archana , the Court recognized that account freezes must be reasonable and proportionate, and applied the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10.04.2026, which provides a time-bound grievance redressal mechanism and favors securing the disputed amount without unnecessarily restricting legitimate funds.

The Court held that these decisions applied mutatis mutandis to the present case.

Applying Malcolm Murayis and Archana , the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the identified disputed amount separately rather than continue freezing the petitioner’s entire account.

It directed that Rs. 10,298.98 be placed in a fixed deposit, subject to liquidation only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, with withdrawal permitted if no such order is passed within that period.

The Court also left the bank free to act according to law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

The disputed Rs. 10,298.98 was to remain in a fixed deposit subject to the conditions stated above.

The petitioner was left at liberty to file a separate petition concerning the Rs. 23,000 frozen by Punjab National Bank, which was not a respondent.