MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account, Holds Disputed Rs 9,309 In FD But Lets Him Withdraw If No Magistrate Order Within 3 Months.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking removal of the freeze/hold on his Kotak Mahindra Bank account.

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, which set out a proportionality-based approach and a grievance-redressal procedure for bank-account freezes in cybercrime cases.

The Court was informed that the disputed amount was ₹9,309.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where a bank-account freeze is challenged.

The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, which directed that a disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate within the specified period, failing which the amount could be released to the account holder.

It also applied Archana, which requires account freezes in cybercrime cases to be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount, and subject to the Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 for grievance redressal.

The Court directed the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court considered the petitioner’s case covered by the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana.

Applying those principles, it ordered preservation of the identified disputed amount of ₹9,309 in a fixed deposit rather than continuing the freeze on the entire account.

The Court also left the Bank free to respond lawfully to any further complaint, subject to the SOP.

The disputed amount may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if the police agency does not proceed within that period, the amount may also be withdrawn by the petitioner after informing the agency.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.