Cyber-fraud account freezes must be proportionate, preserving disputed sums while permitting account operation.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of a hold or freeze on its RBL Bank account.

The Court identified five disputed entries totalling ₹19,241 and noted that the account had been frozen.

The petitioner relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and on the subsequent decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others*, which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026.

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

Whether the disputed amount should be retained 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 freeze warrants intervention.

The Court applied the principles in *Malcolm Murayis*, under which a disputed sum may be kept in a fixed deposit pending appropriate orders by the competent Judicial Magistrate, and *Archana*, which endorsed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026.

Under *Archana*, account restraints should be proportionate and ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient; the investigating agency should inform the Magistrate of the seizure or freeze in accordance with law, and a full-account freeze requires justification.

The Court directed that the disputed amount be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other law relied upon by the police agency.

The Court considered the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applicable *mutatis mutandis*.

It therefore separated the restraint necessary to preserve the five disputed entries, totalling ₹19,241, from the freeze on the petitioner’s entire account.

The disputed amount was to remain in a fixed deposit pending the competent Magistrate’s orders, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.

The Court also allowed for withdrawal of the fixed-deposit amount if the police agency did not proceed in accordance with law within three months.

The bank account was to be unfrozen and made operable; ₹19,241 was to be kept in a fixed deposit and liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If no such orders were passed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the police agency.

The Bank remained free to take action in accordance with law if it received a complaint concerning another entry.