Cyber-fraud account freezes should secure only the disputed amount, leaving the account holder free to operate the account.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the hold or freeze on his India Post Payments Bank account.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and on the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and guidelines discussed in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.

The Court recorded that the disputed amount in the petitioner’s account was Rs. 4,000.

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should remain frozen in full when the disputed amount was identified as Rs. 4,000.

2. Whether the disputed amount should instead be secured while permitting the petitioner to operate the account, subject to compliance with law by the police agency.

Under Article 226, the High Court may grant appropriate relief concerning a bank-account freeze.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that disputed funds be kept in fixed deposits pending lawful action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, with withdrawal permitted if the required orders were not obtained within three months.

It also applied Archana, including the MHA SOP dated 10 April 2026 and its proportionality-based guidelines: restraints should ordinarily be limited to the suspected amount, and banks and investigating agencies should follow the prescribed grievance and procedural requirements.

The police agency was expected to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable mutatis mutandis.

Because the disputed amount was Rs. 4,000, it directed that only that amount be secured in a fixed deposit rather than continuing the freeze on the petitioner’s account as a whole.

This preserved the disputed funds while allowing the petitioner to access the remainder of the account.

The Court also left open the bank’s ability to respond lawfully to any further complaint, subject to the SOP.

The bank account was to be unfrozen and the petitioner permitted to operate it, while Rs. 4,000 was to remain in a fixed deposit until the competent Judicial Magistrate passed orders within three months.

If no such order was passed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after intimating the police agency.

The bank could take appropriate action on any further complaint in accordance with law and the SOP.