Cyber-fraud account freezes should preserve only disputed funds while allowing operation of the remaining account.

The petitioner challenged the freeze on his IndusInd Bank account, contending that it had been imposed without lawful authority or an order.

He sought its removal under Article 226 of the Constitution and submitted that his case was covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others.

The Court also considered the guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) discussed in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, including the need for proportionate restraints and a time-bound grievance mechanism.

1. Whether the petitioner’s account freeze should be removed, subject to securing the disputed amount in accordance with law.

2. Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, while the petitioner is permitted to operate the account.

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

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, under which the disputed amount may be kept in a fixed deposit pending proceedings before the competent Judicial Magistrate, with release permitted if the requisite legal action is not taken within the stipulated period.

It also applied Archana and the SOP dated 10 April 2026, which require account restraints in cyber-fraud matters to be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where practicable, and processed through the prescribed grievance mechanism.

The Court referred to the police agency’s obligation to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered mutatis mutandis by Malcolm Murayis and Archana.

It balanced the need to preserve the disputed amount with the petitioner’s ability to use the account: the disputed amount was to be placed in a fixed deposit, while the account was to be unfrozen.

The fixed deposit could be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the petitioner could withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.

Any further complaint concerning another transaction could be addressed by the bank in accordance with law and the SOP.

The deposit was to remain subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; otherwise, the petitioner could withdraw it under intimation to the police agency.