MP HC Orders Jio Payments Bank to Keep Police-Flagged Funds in FD; Customer May Withdraw if No Magistrate Order Within 3 Months

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the High Court’s order dated 7 July 2026 in W.P. No. 24422 of 2026 and sought action against the alleged contemnors.

Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s case was covered by *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024.

In that decision, the Court had directed that disputed amounts in accounts frozen following cybercrime agency requests be kept in fixed deposits pending action by a competent Judicial Magistrate.

The Court applied the co-ordinate Bench decision in *Malcolm Murayis*, which directed banks to place amounts identified by cybercrime agencies as disputed in fixed deposits, with liquidation dependent on orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such orders, the amount could be released to the account holder under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

The present Court referred to the police agency’s obligation to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

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

Applying that precedent, it directed the Bank to keep the disputed amount reported by the crime agencies in fixed deposits and made continued retention contingent on orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

The Court did not separately determine whether contempt had been committed.

The amount may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing that, it may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.