Cybercrime-related account freezes must preserve only disputed funds while allowing operation of the remaining balance.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the freeze/hold on his State Bank of India account, contending that it had been imposed without lawful authority or an order.

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and on the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) discussed in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others*.

The Court identified Rs. 19,400 as the disputed amount and considered the account freeze in light of those decisions.

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should remain frozen, or be unfrozen subject to securing the disputed amount.

2. Whether the disputed amount should be preserved pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

Under Article 226, the High Court may issue appropriate directions concerning an account freeze.

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit and made subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioners after informing the cybercrime agencies.

The SOP dated 10 April 2026 and the guidelines discussed in *Archana* require account-freezing measures in cybercrime cases to be proportionate, to preserve the suspected amount where practicable, and to be processed through the prescribed grievance mechanism and in accordance with law.

The present Court held that *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applied *mutatis mutandis*.

Applying those precedents, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s account could be operated while the identified disputed sum was separately secured.

It directed that Rs. 19,400 be placed in a fixed deposit, preserving the amount for the investigation without continuing the restraint over the entire account.

The deposit would remain subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, with withdrawal permitted if no such orders were passed, upon 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 Bank was directed to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit him to operate it, while keeping Rs. 19,400 in a fixed deposit on the terms stated by the Court.

The disputed amount could be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioner could withdraw it after informing the Police agency.