MP HC Unfreezes Man’s Bank Account, Keeps Disputed ₹84,700 In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is preserved

The court held

The petition was disposed of. The bank was directed to unfreeze the petitioner’s account and permit him to operate it.

It also directed

The disputed Rs.84,700, representing two entries, was to be kept in a fixed deposit and could be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioner could withdraw it after giving intimation to the police agency.

The bank remained free to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a direction to remove the hold or freeze on his Axis Bank account. Relying on Malcolm Murayis and Archana, he requested relief concerning the account freeze. The Court identified two disputed entries totalling Rs.84,700 and considered the applicable directions in those precedents.

¶ 1–6

The judgment does not set out further details about the transactions or the circumstances in which the account was frozen.

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is preserved

¶ 6

ii.2. Whether the disputed amount of Rs.84,700 should be retained pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law

¶ 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied the directions in Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, holding them applicable mutatis mutandis.

¶ 5–6

Under Malcolm Murayis, the disputed amount may be kept in fixed deposits pending orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within the specified period, while the balance may be made available to the account holder.

Malcolm Murayis · ¶ 9 · present judgment · ¶ 6

The Archana decision relies on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and proportionality principles: ordinarily, a restraint should be limited to the suspected amount, and freezing an entire account requires justification; investigating agencies must proceed under the applicable law, including the relevant provisions of the BNSS.

Archana · ¶ 11–17 · present judgment · ¶ 4–6

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court found that the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana governed the petitioner’s case.

¶ 5–6

Applying those principles, it separated preservation of the identified disputed amount from the wider restraint on the account: Rs.84,700 was to remain secured in a fixed deposit, while the account itself was to be unfrozen.

¶ 5–6

The police agency was expected to take the steps required by law within three months; absent orders from the competent Judicial Magistrate within that period, the petitioner could withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the police agency.

¶ 5–6