MP HC Unfreezes Anil Meda’s SBI Account, Keeps Disputed ₹10,550 in FD for Up to 3 Months Pending Magistrate’s Order

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the hold/freeze on his State Bank of India account, No. 42019212639.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others and on the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which discussed the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning accounts frozen through the NCRP-CFCFRMS mechanism.

The Court identified Rs. 10,550 as the disputed amount and considered whether the account could be operated while that amount remained secured.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while police authorities may take lawful steps to preserve suspected proceeds of crime.

The Court applied the principle of proportionality, as set out in Archana, that a whole-account freeze should not be imposed mechanically where securing the identified disputed amount through a lien or partial restraint would suffice.

It also applied the Malcolm Murayis approach of keeping the disputed amount in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate, with release to the account holder if such orders are not passed within the specified period.

The Court further directed that any other complaint concerning a separate transaction be dealt with in accordance with law and the SOP.

The Court considered Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable mutatis mutandis.

Applying the proportionality principle, it distinguished the identified disputed sum from the petitioner’s account as a whole: the Rs. 10,550 was to remain protected in a fixed deposit, while the account itself could be unfrozen.

This preserved the disputed funds for the investigation without continuing a restraint on the petitioner’s entire account.

If no such orders are passed within that period, the amount may be withdrawn by the petitioner after informing the police agency.

The petitioner’s bank account was to be unfrozen and he was permitted to operate it; the Bank remained free to act lawfully on any complaint relating to another transaction, having regard to the SOP.