MP HC Orders Man’s Bank Account Unfrozen, Disputed Amount Kept in FD Pending Magistrate’s Order Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be de-frozen while preserving any identified disputed amount

The court held

The Court directed the bank to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit him to operate it.

It also directed

The disputed amount is to remain in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders are passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount after intimating the police agency.

Any action concerning other complaints or entries must comply with law and the SOP.

The petition was disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking de-freezing of his savings account maintained with Punjab & Sind Bank, Ratlam, or, alternatively, retention of only the disputed amount while allowing access to the remaining funds

¶ 1

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and the subsequent directions in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. concerning the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for accounts placed on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS

¶ 2–4

The Court considered those decisions applicable to the petitioner’s case

¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be de-frozen while preserving any identified disputed amount

¶ 1, 5–6

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

¶ 6

03Law Applied

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

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and made subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which it could be withdrawn by the petitioners after notifying the cyber-crime agencies.

¶ 3

In Archana, the Court considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026, which establishes a grievance-redressal process and requires account freezes to be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where practicable, and handled in accordance with prescribed procedures and timelines.

¶ 4

The present Court held that those decisions applied mutatis mutandis

¶ 5

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court applied the approach in Malcolm Murayis and Archana to balance preservation of the disputed funds with the petitioner’s ability to operate the account.

¶ 5–6

It directed that the disputed amount be secured in a fixed deposit, while the account itself be unfrozen. This preserves the disputed funds pending judicial action without continuing a blanket restraint on the account.

¶ 5–6

The Court also required any further action concerning other reported entries to be taken in accordance with law and the SOP.

¶ 6