MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account, Keeps ₹4,672 Disputed Amount in FD Pending Magistrate’s Order

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking unfreezing of his bank account, No. 925010014937315.

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others* and submitted that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for bank accounts placed on hold in cybercrime cases, considered in *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others*, was also relevant.

The Court noted that the disputed amount was ₹4,672 and considered whether the account could be operated while that sum remained secured.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief.

In *Malcolm Murayis*, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months, with withdrawal permitted if no such order was passed.

In *Archana*, the Court considered the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026, which provides a grievance-redressal process and requires account restraints to be proportionate to the suspected amount, subject to applicable law and investigative needs.

The Court applied these decisions *mutatis mutandis* and referred to compliance by the police under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

The Court found the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* and *Archana* applicable to the petitioner’s case.

It therefore balanced the need to preserve the disputed sum against the petitioner’s ability to operate the account: the ₹4,672 was to be secured in a fixed deposit, while the account was to be unfrozen.

The Bank could address any further complaint concerning another transaction in accordance with law and the SOP.

The disputed sum of ₹4,672 must remain in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only after orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; if no such order is passed within that period, the petitioner may withdraw the amount after informing the police agency.