01Facts
The petitioners invoked Article 226 seeking the unfreezing of specified SBI and Union Bank accounts and protection against further restrictions on their operation
¶ 1They 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
¶ 2–4The Court identified Rs. 50,000 as the disputed amount in the present case
¶ 602Issues
i.Whether the petitioners’ bank accounts should remain frozen, or be permitted to operate subject to preservation of the disputed amount
¶ 5–6ii.Whether the disputed amount should be retained in a fixed deposit pending action by the competent Judicial Magistrate
¶ 603Law 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
¶ 3Archana 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 · ¶ 11–18The Court applied these decisions mutatis mutandis to the present case
¶ 5Provisions 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
¶ 5It 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
¶ 6The 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
¶ 605Holding
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
¶ 6–7The 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
¶ 6Any further complaint may be dealt with by the Bank in accordance with law and the SOP
¶ 6Original Court PDF
Korrai MuralivsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Crime Branch Indore
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
