01Facts
The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the hold/freeze on his Axis Bank account.
¶ 1–4He relied on Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which addressed freezes imposed in connection with cybercrime complaints and the applicable grievance-redressal procedure.
¶ 1–4The disputed amount identified in the petition was ₹44,728.
¶ 6The Court considered whether the account could be unfrozen while preserving that amount.
02Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount of ₹44,728 is preserved in a fixed deposit.
¶ 5–6ii.2. Whether the disputed amount may be released if the competent Judicial Magistrate does not pass an order within three months.
¶ 603Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief.
In Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India, the Court directed that disputed funds be kept in fixed deposits pending action by the competent Magistrate, with release permitted if no order was passed within three months.
¶ 3In Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court applied the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized that account freezes should be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient, and subject to a time-bound grievance process and appropriate legal oversight.
¶ 4, reproducing Archana, paras 11–18The judgment also referred to action under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102
04Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered mutatis mutandis by Malcolm Murayis and Archana.
¶ 5Applying those decisions, it distinguished the disputed sum from the remainder of the account: the ₹44,728 was to be secured in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.
¶ 6This preserved the disputed amount pending lawful proceedings without continuing the restraint over the entire account.
¶ 605Holding
The petition was allowed to the extent that the petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen and made operable, while ₹44,728 was to be kept in a fixed deposit.
¶ 6–7The deposit may be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner may withdraw it after informing the police agency.
¶ 6–7The Bank may take action in accordance with law and the SOP if it receives a complaint concerning another transaction.
¶ 6–7Original Court PDF
Mukesh ThaddanivsAxis Bank
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
