01Facts
The petitioner sought a direction to remove the hold or freeze on its IndusInd Bank account No. 257440846100.
¶ 1Relying on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors. and the later order in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., the petitioner contended that the account should be operable while the disputed amount was separately secured.
¶ 2–4The Court identified the disputed amount as ₹10,800 and considered the applicable Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for bank accounts placed on hold in cybercrime cases.
¶ 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should remain frozen when the disputed amount was ₹10,800.
¶ 5–6ii.2. Whether the disputed amount should be secured separately while permitting the petitioner to operate the account, subject to further action under law.
¶ 603Law Applied
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant appropriate relief where a bank-account freeze requires judicial intervention.
The Court applied the principles in Malcolm Murayis, which provided for disputed funds to be kept in fixed deposits pending action by the competent Magistrate, and the proportionality and grievance-redressal framework discussed in Archana, including the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026.
¶ 3–5 · Archana · ¶ 11–18 reproduced in the judgmentThe investigating agency is expected to proceed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the BNSS or other law relied upon; the disputed amount may be released if the competent Magistrate does not pass the relevant order within three months.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102
04Reasoning
The Court held that Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.
¶ 5It therefore distinguished the limited disputed sum of ₹10,800 from the rest of the account: the disputed amount was to be preserved in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.
¶ 6This arrangement protected the disputed funds while allowing the petitioner to operate the account, consistently with the principles and SOP considered by the Court.
¶ 605Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to unfreeze the petitioner’s bank account and permit its operation.
¶ 6The disputed amount of ₹10,800 must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only after an order by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.
¶ 6If no such order is passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the fixed-deposit amount under intimation to the police agency.
¶ 6The Bank may address any further complaint in accordance with law and the applicable SOP.
¶ 6Original Court PDF
Task Evolution Through Propretor Ishwar MeenavsIndusind Bank Through Manager
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
