Cybercrime-related bank accounts must be unfrozen once the disputed amount is secured separately.

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 to remove the hold on his State Bank of India savings account and permit him to operate it.

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others*, decided on 27 July 2026, concerning bank-account freezes linked to cybercrime complaints and the applicable grievance procedure.

The disputed amount identified in the present petition was Rs. 2,740.

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

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

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions to protect against unlawful or disproportionate restrictions.

The Court applied *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that disputed amounts linked to cybercrime complaints be kept in fixed deposits pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which the amount could be released to the account holder under intimation to the police.

It also applied *Archana*, which discussed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionate account restraints, preservation of only the disputed amount where sufficient, and a time-bound grievance-redressal process.

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

The Court considered the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applicable to the petitioner’s case *mutatis mutandis*.

It balanced preservation of the disputed Rs. 2,740 against the need to allow access to the rest of the account, directing that the disputed sum be kept in a fixed deposit while the account itself was unfrozen.

It also left the bank free to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint relating to another transaction.

The disputed Rs. 2,740 must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such order is passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.