Madhya Pradesh High CourtAdministrative and Public LawBanking and Finance Law

MP HC Unfreezes Petitioners’ Bank Accounts, Keeps Rs 50,000 Disputed Amount In Fixed Deposit

Korrai Muraliv.The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Crime Branch Indore

MP HC Unfreezes Petitioners’ Bank Accounts, Keeps Rs 50,000 Disputed Amount In Fixed Deposit. Korrai Murali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Crime Branch Indore. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners’ bank accounts should remain frozen, or be permitted to operate subject to preservation of the disputed amount

The court held

The petition was disposed of with directions to unfreeze the petitioners’ accounts and permit their operation, while keeping Rs. 50,000 in a fixed deposit

It also directed

The disputed amount may be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioners may withdraw it after giving intimation to the police agency

Any further complaint may be dealt with by the Bank in accordance with law and the SOP

01Facts

The petitioners invoked Article 226 seeking the unfreezing of specified SBI and Union Bank accounts and protection against further restrictions on their operation

¶ 1

They relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India and Others , W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others , which addressed the proportionality of account freezes and the grievance mechanism under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP dated 10 April 2026

¶ 2–4

The Court identified Rs. 50,000 as the disputed amount in the present case

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners’ bank accounts should remain frozen, or be permitted to operate subject to preservation of the disputed amount

¶ 5–6

ii.Whether the disputed amount should be retained in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate

¶ 6

03Law Applied

Under Article 226, the High Court may grant relief against an account freeze in accordance with applicable law.

In Malcolm Murayis , the Court directed preservation of the disputed amount in a fixed deposit, with liquidation dependent on orders of the competent Magistrate within the specified period

¶ 3

Archana applied the SOP dated 10 April 2026 and emphasized that account freezes must be proportionate, that suspected funds should ordinarily be secured by a lien or partial freeze where sufficient, and that grievances should be addressed through the prescribed, time-bound process

¶ 4, reproducing Archana · ¶ 11–18

The Court applied these decisions mutatis mutandis to the present case

¶ 5

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102

04Reasoning

The Court considered the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable to the petitioners’ case

¶ 5

It balanced preservation of the identified disputed amount—Rs. 50,000—against the petitioners’ ability to use their accounts, directing that the disputed sum be secured in a fixed deposit while the accounts were unfrozen

¶ 6

The Court also preserved the Bank’s ability to respond lawfully to any further complaint and required the police agency to proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS or other applicable law

¶ 6

05Holding

The petition was disposed of with directions to unfreeze the petitioners’ accounts and permit their operation, while keeping Rs. 50,000 in a fixed deposit

¶ 6–7

The disputed amount may be liquidated only upon orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such orders, the petitioners may withdraw it after giving intimation to the police agency

¶ 6

Any further complaint may be dealt with by the Bank in accordance with law and the SOP

¶ 6
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Korrai MuralivsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Crime Branch Indore

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment