Cyber-fraud account freezes should be limited to securing the disputed amount.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking an order directing Indian Overseas Bank to unfreeze his bank account.

He 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 Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026 for grievances concerning accounts placed on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS.

The judgment does not specify the disputed transaction amount or the circumstances in which the petitioner’s account was frozen.

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

2. Whether the disputed amount should remain secured in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where the freezing of a bank account warrants judicial intervention.

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and permitted liquidation only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioners under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

In *Archana*, the Court considered the MHA SOP dated 10 April 2026 and set out guidelines for proportionate account restrictions, grievance redressal, and preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient; it also addressed the responsibilities of banks and investigating agencies.

The present Court held that both precedents applied *mutatis mutandis*.

The present Court required the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered the earlier rulings applicable to the petitioner’s case and adopted their approach: the account should be made operational while the disputed amount is preserved separately in a fixed deposit.

It also directed that any further complaint concerning another transaction be addressed by the bank in accordance with law and the SOP discussed in *Archana*.

The police agency was expected to take the matter to the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; otherwise, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the police agency.

The disputed amount is to be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such order is passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.