MP HC Unfreezes Sunil Yadav’s Bank Account, Keeps Disputed ₹50,000 In FD Pending Magistrate’s Order Within 3 Months

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that his State Bank of India account had been frozen without lawful authority and asking that the freeze be removed

The disputed amount identified in the petition was ₹50,000

The petitioner relied on Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India and on the later decision in Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which addressed the Government’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for grievances concerning bank-account holds in cybercrime cases

The Court considered those decisions applicable to the present case

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against an allegedly unlawful account freeze.

In Malcolm Murayis v. State Bank of India, the Court directed that a disputed amount be placed in fixed deposits and permitted its liquidation if the competent Magistrate did not pass an order within three months after the investigating agency proceeded in accordance with law.

In Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court applied the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP dated 10 April 2026 and articulated the principles that account restraints should be proportionate, that a lien or partial freeze should ordinarily be preferred where it adequately secures the suspected amount, and that investigating agencies should act under the applicable law and inform the competent Magistrate.

The Court held that these decisions applied mutatis mutandis to this case.

Applying Malcolm Murayis and Archana, the Court concluded that the disputed ₹50,000 could be preserved separately rather than continuing the freeze on the petitioner’s entire account.

It directed that the disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit, while the account itself be unfrozen and made available for the petitioner’s use.

The fixed deposit could be liquidated only after an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate; if no such order were passed within three months, the petitioner could withdraw the amount after informing the police agency.

The disputed ₹50,000 was to be kept in a fixed deposit, subject to liquidation upon an order of the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner could withdraw the amount under intimation to the police agency.