01Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking de-freezing of his bank account
¶ 1He relied on *Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India* and the later decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, concerning the treatment of bank-account freezes arising from cybercrime complaints and the applicable grievance-redressal procedure
¶ 2–4The Court recorded that the disputed amount in the petitioner’s account was Rs. 20,000
¶ 602Issues
i.Whether the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and the guidelines in *Archana* applied to the petitioner’s frozen bank account
¶ 5–6ii.Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount was separately secured pending action by the competent authority
¶ 603Law Applied
The Court applied the principles in *Malcolm Murayis*, which provide for securing a disputed cybercrime-related amount in a fixed deposit, subject to orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within the stipulated period.
¶ 3It also applied *Archana*, which endorsed proportionate restrictions on bank accounts and the grievance-redressal process under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026; under those guidelines, a freeze should ordinarily be limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient, and the investigating agency should act in accordance with law and within the applicable timelines.
¶ 4–5 · *Archana* · ¶ 11–18The Court referred to proceedings 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 by *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* and applied those decisions *mutatis mutandis*.
¶ 5It directed that the identified disputed amount of Rs. 20,000 be kept in a fixed deposit, while the petitioner’s account was unfrozen and made available for operation. This preserved the disputed sum while avoiding continued restraint on the entire account; the police agency was expected to proceed under the applicable law within three months.
¶ 605Holding
The Court disposed of the petition, directed that the petitioner’s account be unfrozen, and permitted him to operate it.
¶ 6–7The Rs. 20,000 disputed amount must remain in a fixed deposit until orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such orders are passed within that period, the amount may also be withdrawn by the petitioner after intimating the police agency.
¶ 6–7Original Court PDF
Yash DawarvsState Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Department Of Home (Police) Mantralay
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
