MP HC Lets Account Holder Operate Bank Account, Keeps ₹66,367 Disputed Sum In FD Pending Magistrate’s Decision Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applied to the petitioner’s account freeze.

The court held

The disputed amount of Rs. 66,367 was to remain in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders, it could be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency.

It also directed

The petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen and made available for operation.

The petition was disposed of.

Although the petition also sought an order unblocking the petitioner’s PAN, the operative directions do not expressly grant or determine that relief.

01Facts

The petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking removal of the hold/freeze on his Axis Bank account and unblocking of his PAN.

p. 1

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, which concerned bank-account freezes arising from cybercrime complaints.

¶ 2

The Court also considered the co-ordinate Bench’s decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others*, including its discussion of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026.

¶ 4

The amount identified as disputed in this petition was Rs. 66,367.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applied to the petitioner’s account freeze.

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the petitioner’s account could be unfrozen while preserving the disputed amount pending action by the competent authority.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit and permitted its liquidation only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the amount could be released to the account holder under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

¶ 3

It also applied *Archana*, which discussed the MHA SOP dated 10 April 2026 and endorsed proportionate restraints on bank accounts, grievance redressal, and preservation of only the amount necessary for investigation where appropriate.

¶ 4

The present order referred to proceedings under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

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

¶ 5

Applying those principles, it directed that the identified disputed amount of Rs. 66,367 be secured in a fixed deposit while allowing the petitioner to operate the account, thereby preserving the disputed funds without continuing the freeze on the entire account.

¶ 6

It also left open the Bank’s ability to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

¶ 6