MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Account While Keeping Disputed ₹51,210 in FD, Which May Be Withdrawn If Magistrate Does Not Act Within 3 Months

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking restoration of normal operations in his frozen Bank of Baroda account, or alternatively a hold limited to the disputed transaction amount.

He also sought permission to cooperate with the New Delhi Cyber Police by video conference rather than appearing in person.

Relying on *Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India* and *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, the petitioner sought relief concerning the freezing of his account.

The Court recorded that the disputed amount comprised multiple entries totalling Rs. 51,210.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where the freezing of a bank account warrants judicial intervention.

The Court applied the principles in *Malcolm Murayis*, under which a disputed amount may be preserved separately and released if the competent Magistrate does not pass an order within the specified period.

It also applied the Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 and the guidelines set out in *Archana*: account restraints should be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that adequately safeguards the investigation, and grievances should be considered through the prescribed process.

The Court directed that the disputed amount be preserved pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered the *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* decisions applicable *mutatis mutandis*.

Applying their proportionality approach, it concluded that the entire account need not remain frozen where the identified disputed amount could be separately secured.

It therefore directed that Rs. 51,210 be placed in a fixed deposit, while the account was unfrozen and the petitioner permitted to operate it.

The Court did not separately state reasons or issue a specific direction on the request for video-conference cooperation.

The Bank was directed to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit normal operation, while keeping Rs. 51,210 in a fixed deposit.

That amount could be liquidated only upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner could withdraw it after informing the Police agency.

The Bank could act in accordance with law if it received a complaint concerning another entry.