Madhya Pradesh High Court
Administrative and Public LawBanking and Finance Law

Cybercrime account freezes must not prevent operation beyond securing the disputed amount.

Abhishek Gour vs Reserve Bank Of India

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Cybercrime account freezes must not prevent operation beyond securing the disputed amount.. Abhishek Gour vs Reserve Bank Of India. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking the unfreezing and restoration of full operation of his HDFC Bank account.

Source reference: para. 1

Relying on Malcolm Murayis and Archana, he sought relief against the account freeze.

Source reference: paras. 2–4

The Court recorded that the disputed amount was ₹10,000 and considered the prior decisions’ directions concerning bank-account freezes in cybercrime matters.

Source reference: paras. 4–6
02

Issues

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

Source reference: paras. 5–6

Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

Source reference: para. 6
03

Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief in cases concerning the freezing of bank accounts.

Source reference: no citation

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India and Others and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others mutatis mutandis.

Source reference: paras. 3–5

Under the principles reflected in those decisions and the Government’s SOP dated 10 April 2026, a restraint should be proportionate to the suspected proceeds of crime; where appropriate, the disputed amount may be secured without preventing operation of the entire account.

Source reference: paras. 4, 6

The investigating agency is expected to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law, including seeking orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Source reference: paras. 4, 6
04

Reasoning

The Court considered its earlier decisions applicable to the petitioner’s case and balanced preservation of the disputed sum against the need to permit ordinary operation of the account.

Source reference: paras. 5–6

It therefore directed that the identified disputed amount of ₹10,000 be placed in a fixed deposit, while the account itself be unfrozen.

Source reference: para. 6

The amount would remain secured pending an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such an order, it could be released to the petitioner, with intimation to the police agency.

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

The Court disposed of the petition, directed that the petitioner’s bank account be unfrozen and permitted him to operate it, and ordered that ₹10,000 be kept in a fixed deposit subject to the stated three-month period and Magistrate-order condition.

The bank may take appropriate action in accordance with law if it receives a complaint concerning another transaction.

Source reference: para. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Abhishek GourvsReserve Bank Of India

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment