MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account Frozen In Cyber-Fraud Probe, Allows Disputed Sum To Be Withdrawn If No Magistrate Order Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be defrozen, subject to preservation of the disputed amount in a fixed deposit.

The court held

The petition was disposed of.

It also directed

The petitioner’s bank account is to be unfrozen and may be operated by him.

The disputed amount must be kept in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only if the competent Judicial Magistrate passes an order within three months; if no such order is passed, the petitioner may withdraw that amount after informing the police agency.

The bank may take appropriate action in respect of any other complaint in accordance with law and the SOP.

01Facts

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking the defreezing of his bank account, No. 43380491386, maintained with respondent No. 2.

¶ 1

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and the later decision in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others*, which considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026 for grievances concerning bank accounts placed on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS.

¶ 2–4

The judgment does not set out further particulars about the alleged transaction or the amount in dispute.

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be defrozen, subject to preservation of the disputed amount in a fixed deposit.

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should remain preserved only pending action by the police agency under the applicable law, with release to the petitioner if the competent Judicial Magistrate does not pass an order within three months.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief in response to an unlawful or disproportionate restraint on a bank account.

¶ 1

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and allowed its liquidation only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the amount could be withdrawn by the petitioners after informing the cyber-crime agencies.

¶ 3

In *Archana*, the Court considered the MHA SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionality in account freezes, preservation of only the suspected amount where sufficient, and observance of the SOP’s grievance-redressal process and timelines.

¶ 4, reproducing *Archana* · ¶ 11–18

The present order also refers to action by the police agency under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

¶ 6

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court considered *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applicable *mutatis mutandis* to the petitioner’s case.

¶ 5

Applying the approach in those decisions, it balanced preservation of the disputed amount for the investigation against the petitioner’s ability to operate the account: the account was to be unfrozen, while the disputed amount would remain secured in a fixed deposit pending an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate.

¶ 6

The Court also directed that any further complaint concerning another transaction be addressed in accordance with law and the SOP.

¶ 6