MP HC Unfreezes Minor’s Bank Account, Allows Disputed Sum Held In FD To Be Withdrawn If Magistrate Does Not Act Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s frozen bank account should be de-frozen, subject to preservation of the disputed amount and any further lawful action by the authorities.

The court held

The petition was disposed of.

It also directed

The bank account was to be unfrozen and the petitioner permitted to operate it.

The disputed amount was to be kept in a fixed deposit, releasable upon the competent Judicial Magistrate’s order within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner could withdraw it under intimation to the police agency.

01Facts

The minor petitioner, through her guardian, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking de-freezing of her bank account, No. 37098093114.

¶ 1

Her counsel submitted that the case was covered by Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024 (26 April 2024).

¶ 2

The Court also considered the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10 April 2026 and the guidelines framed in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., order dated 27 July 2026.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s frozen bank account should be de-frozen, subject to preservation of the disputed amount and any further lawful action by the authorities.

¶ 5–6

ii.2. Whether the disputed amount should remain secured pending an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate under the applicable law.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where the circumstances warrant intervention.

¶ 1

In Malcolm Murayis, the Court directed that the disputed amount be kept in fixed deposits and be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; absent such an order, the amount could be withdrawn under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.

¶ 3

In Archana, the Court considered the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized proportionate restrictions on bank accounts, grievance redressal, and preservation of only the amount necessary to secure the investigation.

¶ 4, quoting Archana · ¶ 11–18

The present Court held that those decisions applied mutatis mutandis.

¶ 5

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

¶ 6

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

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

¶ 5

Applying those decisions, it balanced the petitioner’s ability to operate her account against the need to preserve the disputed amount for the investigation.

¶ 6

It therefore ordered the disputed amount to be placed in a fixed deposit while permitting the petitioner to operate the account.

¶ 6

The police were expected to obtain an order from the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; otherwise, the fixed-deposit amount could also be withdrawn under intimation to the police agency.

¶ 6