MP HC Lets Man Operate Account Frozen Over Cybercrime Complaints, Keeps Disputed Rs 41,300 In FD Pending Magistrate Action

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking removal of a hold or freeze on his UCO Bank account.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and on the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, which set out guidance concerning bank-account freezes arising from cybercrime complaints.

The Court recorded five disputed entries totalling Rs. 41,300. It directed that this amount be kept in a fixed deposit and that the petitioner’s account be unfrozen and made operable.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against an account freeze.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis and Archana mutatis mutandis.

Archana relied on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 and principles of proportionality: a restraint should ordinarily be limited to the suspected amount where that would adequately protect the investigation; any wider freeze should be justified, and the grievance mechanism and applicable timelines should be followed.

The Court also required the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law, with the disputed amount to be liquidated only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate.

Following Malcolm Murayis and Archana, the Court considered that the disputed sum could be secured separately without continuing to restrict operation of the entire account.

It therefore directed that Rs. 41,300 be placed in a fixed deposit while permitting the petitioner to operate the account.

The police agency was allowed three months to proceed in accordance with law and obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate; absent such an order, the fixed-deposit amount could also be withdrawn by the petitioner, with intimation to the police agency.

The disputed Rs. 41,300 was to be kept in a fixed deposit, releasable only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, the petitioner could withdraw it after notifying the police agency.