Only the disputed amount may remain secured; the bank account must otherwise be unfrozen.

The petitioner sought to quash the freezing of his Bank of India savings account and restore its operation, as well as obtain copies of the complaints or orders underlying the freeze

He relied on Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, and Archana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., decided on 27 July 2026, concerning the freezing of bank accounts in cybercrime cases and the applicable grievance-redressal procedure

The Court recorded that the disputed amount in the petitioner’s case was ₹20,200

1. Whether the petitioner’s account should remain frozen in full when the disputed amount was ₹20,200.

2. Whether the disputed amount should instead be secured separately while the petitioner is permitted to operate the account.

The Court applied the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, holding them applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case.

The Archana decision discussed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 April 2026 for grievances concerning bank accounts put on hold through the NCRP-CFCFRMS, including the principles that restraint should be proportionate, that only the suspected amount should ordinarily be secured where identifiable, and that the prescribed grievance process should be followed.

The Court also directed that the police agency proceed under the relevant provisions of the BNSS, or any other law relied upon, within three months.

Having found the principles in Malcolm Murayis and Archana applicable, the Court directed that the identified disputed amount be kept in a fixed deposit rather than continuing the freeze on the petitioner’s account as a whole.

This preserved the disputed funds while allowing the petitioner to resume operating the account.

The Court also left the Bank free to act in accordance with law and the SOP if it received a complaint concerning another transaction.

The disputed amount may be liquidated only upon an order by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months; failing such an order, the petitioner may withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the police agency.

The Court did not expressly grant the separate request for copies of the complaints or orders.