MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account, Keeps Disputed ₹1,738 In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking removal of the hold or freeze on his Kotak Mahindra Bank account, No. 6149065856

He relied on *Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India* and *Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, which address bank-account freezes arising from cybercrime complaints and the applicable grievance mechanism

The Court identified Rs. 1,738 as the disputed amount and considered whether the account could be operated while that amount was preserved

Under Article 226, the High Court may grant appropriate relief against an account freeze.

The Court applied the principles in *Malcolm Murayis*, under which a disputed amount may be kept in a fixed deposit pending lawful action, with release permitted if the competent Magistrate does not pass the requisite order within the stipulated period.

It also applied the SOP dated 10 April 2026 and the guidelines in *Archana*, which require account-freezing measures in cybercrime cases to be proportionate, ordinarily limited to the suspected amount where that is sufficient, and processed through the prescribed grievance mechanism.

The Court referred to proceedings under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.

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

Consistent with those authorities’ approach of preserving the suspected amount without unnecessarily restricting access to the rest of an account, it directed that Rs. 1,738 be placed in a fixed deposit while the petitioner’s account was unfrozen.

It also provided for release of the fixed-deposit amount if the competent Judicial Magistrate did not pass orders within three months, subject to intimation to the police agency.

The bank account was to be unfrozen and made available for the petitioner’s use; Rs. 1,738 was to remain in a fixed deposit pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.

If no such orders were passed within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount under intimation to the police agency.

The bank remained at liberty to act in accordance with law if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.