MP HC Unfreezes Axis Account, Keeps Disputed Rs 50,000 In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen in its entirety when the disputed amount was stated to be Rs. 50,000.

The court held

The Court directed that the petitioner’s account be unfrozen and that he be permitted to operate it.

It also directed

The disputed Rs. 50,000 must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders are passed within that period, the amount may be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the police agency.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of a freeze or hold on his Axis Bank account.

¶ 1

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and the guidelines discussed in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶ 2–4

The Court treated Rs. 50,000 as the disputed amount claimed or reported in connection with the account and considered whether that sum could be secured separately while the petitioner continued to operate the account.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen in its entirety when the disputed amount was stated to be Rs. 50,000.

¶ 6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should instead be kept in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against an allegedly unlawful or disproportionate account freeze.

¶ 1

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits, subject to orders by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, failing which the amount could be withdrawn under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

¶ 3

The guidelines in Archana, based on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026, require account freezes to be proportionate and ordinarily limited to the suspected amount; they also prescribe a grievance-redressal process and timely action by banks and investigating agencies.

¶ 4

The Court held that these decisions applied mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.

¶ 5

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

Applying Malcolm Murayis and Archana, the Court considered it sufficient to preserve the identified disputed amount rather than continue freezing the petitioner’s entire account.

¶ 5–6

It therefore directed that Rs. 50,000 be kept in a fixed deposit, while permitting the petitioner to operate the account.

¶ 5–6

The direction also preserved the investigating agency’s ability to act in accordance with law and allowed the disputed sum to remain secured pending the Magistrate’s orders.

¶ 5–6