Cybercrime-related bank freezes must be proportionate, preserving only disputed amounts while allowing account operation.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking removal of the freeze or hold imposed on his Bank of India account, alleging that it had been frozen without lawful authority or order

Counsel submitted that the matter was covered by *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and the Court also considered the later decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others*, which discussed the Government’s 10 April 2026 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning accounts placed on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS.

Whether the petitioner’s frozen bank account should be unfrozen, subject to preservation of the disputed amount.

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

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the High Court may grant appropriate relief against an unlawful or arbitrary restraint on a bank account.

It followed *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that a disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit and permitted its release if the competent Magistrate did not pass an order within three months.

It also applied *Archana*, which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasised that account freezes should be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient, and subject to the prescribed grievance and review process.

The investigating agency is expected to proceed under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or other applicable law, when seeking to preserve the disputed amount.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered, *mutatis mutandis*, by *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana*.

Consistent with the approach in those decisions, it balanced the petitioner’s ability to operate his account against the need to preserve the disputed funds during the investigation. It therefore directed that the account be unfrozen while the disputed amount remained secured in a fixed deposit pending timely orders from the competent Magistrate.

The disputed amount is to be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If no such orders are passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after notifying the Police agency.

The petition was disposed of.