MP HC Unfreezes Divy Everfresh’s Account, Keeps Disputed Rs 4,937 In FD Pending Magistrate Action Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the disputed sum of ₹4,937 is preserved pending action by the competent authority.

The court held

The petition was disposed of.

It also directed

Bandhan Bank was directed to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit its operation, while keeping ₹4,937 in a fixed deposit.

That amount may be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate; if the police agency does not proceed in accordance with law within three months, the petitioner may withdraw it after informing the agency.

The Bank may address any other complaint concerning a different transaction in accordance with law and the SOP.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 to remove the hold or freeze on its Bandhan Bank account, No. 20100040970711.

¶ 1

The disputed amount identified in the petition was ₹4,937.

¶ 1

The Court considered the petitioner’s case in light of Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, including the latter’s discussion of the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 on grievances concerning accounts placed on hold in cybercrime cases.

¶ 2–5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s account should be unfrozen while the disputed sum of ₹4,937 is preserved pending action by the competent authority.

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should remain secured if the police agency does not proceed in accordance with law within the time allowed.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant relief against an account freeze.

The Court applied the principles in Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India, which allowed disputed funds to be kept in a fixed deposit pending appropriate action by the competent Magistrate.

¶ 3–5

Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which requires account-freezing measures in cybercrime cases to be proportionate and consistent with the SOP dated 10 April 2026.

¶ 3–5

The Court also directed that the police agency proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or any other law relied upon.

¶ 6

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court held that the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applied mutatis mutandis.

¶ 5

It balanced preservation of the specifically identified disputed amount against the petitioner’s ability to use the rest of its account: ₹4,937 was to be secured in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.

¶ 6

The police agency was given three months to take the matter before the competent Judicial Magistrate; absent such action, the fixed-deposit amount could also be withdrawn, with intimation to the police agency.

¶ 6