01Facts
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution for unfreezing his bank account.
¶ 1–4He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, concerning the freezing of bank accounts in cyber-fraud investigations and the applicable grievance mechanism.
¶ 1–4The Court noted that the disputed amount in the petitioner’s case was Rs. 22,000.
¶ 602Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s bank account should be unfrozen while the disputed amount is separately secured.
¶ 5–6ii.Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.
¶ 603Law Applied
Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where a bank-account freeze warrants judicial intervention.
The Court applied Malcolm Murayis, under which a disputed amount may be kept in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Magistrate, with release to the account holder if the requisite legal action is not taken within the prescribed period.
¶ 3It also applied Archana, which discusses the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026 and requires bank-account restrictions in cyber-fraud cases to be proportionate, with grievance redressal and investigation carried out in accordance with the SOP.
¶ 4, reproducing Archana · ¶ 11–18These authorities were held applicable mutatis mutandis.
¶ 5Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102
04Reasoning
Applying Malcolm Murayis and Archana, the Court distinguished the disputed Rs. 22,000 from the remainder of the petitioner’s account and directed that only the disputed amount be secured in a fixed deposit.
¶ 5–6This preserved the amount potentially relevant to the investigation without continuing to restrict the petitioner’s access to the entire account.
The Court also required the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law.
¶ 605Holding
The Court directed that the petitioner’s bank account be unfrozen and that he be permitted to operate it.
¶ 6–7The Rs. 22,000 disputed amount must remain in a fixed deposit and may be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months.
¶ 6–7If that does not occur, the petitioner may withdraw the amount after giving intimation to the police agency.
¶ 6–7The Bank may address any further complaint in accordance with law and the applicable SOP.
¶ 6–7The petition was disposed of accordingly.
¶ 6–7Original Court PDF
NarendravsBranch Manager
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
