Cyber-fraud freezes must be limited to disputed sums, with the remaining account funds released.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the hold or freeze on his bank account.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others and on the guidelines concerning frozen bank accounts discussed in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.

The Court identified Rs. 19,597 as the disputed amount and considered whether the petitioner’s account could be operated while that sum remained secured.

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount of Rs. 19,597 is separately secured.

Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate, having regard to the applicable precedent and the Government’s SOP.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including directions concerning a bank-account freeze.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that a disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate and permitted withdrawal if the required action was not taken within three months.

It also applied Archana, which discussed the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 and principles requiring account-freezing measures to be proportionate, limited where practicable to the suspected amount, and handled through the prescribed grievance mechanism.

The Court did not identify a specific BNSS provision; it directed the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court held that the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied mutatis mutandis to this case.

It therefore separated the disputed sum from the account as a whole: Rs. 19,597 was to be kept in a fixed deposit, while the account was to be unfrozen and made available for the petitioner’s use.

The Court also allowed the Bank to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

The disputed Rs. 19,597 was to remain in a fixed deposit and could be liquidated only after orders were passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If the police agency did not proceed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the amount, under intimation to the agency.