Archive · 2 Sep 2026
MP High Court Orders SBI Account Unfrozen, Holds Disputed Funds
A woman’s bank account was frozen after cybercrime authorities flagged a suspicious transaction.
She told the court that she had not received notice of any alleged wrongdoing.
She said she traded in cryptocurrency and virtual currency.
The court said the whole account did not need to stay frozen because only one amount was disputed.
It ordered SBI to unfreeze the rest of the account.
SBI must keep Rs 2,01,263.58 in a fixed deposit.
The money can be released only after a judicial magistrate gives appropriate orders.
Police are expected to take legal action within three months.
If they do not, the woman may be allowed to withdraw the fixed-deposit amount after informing the authorities.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered SBI to unfreeze a woman’s bank account.
SBI may retain Rs 2,01,263.58 linked to an allegedly suspicious transaction.
The disputed amount must be placed in a fixed deposit.
The woman may operate the account’s remaining balance.
A judicial magistrate must decide the disputed funds within three months, or they may become withdrawable.
- Who
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court, SBI, a woman petitioner, and cybercrime authorities.
- What
- The court ordered SBI to unfreeze the woman’s account while securing Rs 2,01,263.58 in a fixed deposit.
- When
- The order was issued on August 31, with a three-month period for further legal action.
- Where
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- Why
- The court found that an entire account need not remain frozen merely because one transaction was flagged as suspicious.
Petitioner’s position
Cybercrime authorities’ position
Scope of account freeze
Petitioner’s position
The woman argued that she should be allowed to operate her account because only a particular transaction was disputed.
Cybercrime authorities’ position
Cybercrime authorities flagged a transaction as suspicious and instructed that the account be subjected to a debit freeze.
Treatment of disputed funds
Petitioner’s position
The woman agreed that the allegedly fraud-linked amount could be kept separately in a fixed deposit until the matter was resolved.
Cybercrime authorities’ position
The disputed amount was to remain secured pending appropriate orders from a competent judicial magistrate.
- Bank
- State Bank of India (SBI)
- Disputed amount
- Rs 2,01,263.58
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Judge
- Justice Sandeep N Bhatt
- Required action
- Keep the disputed amount in a fixed deposit and unfreeze the remaining balance.
- Deadline
- Three months for police to proceed under Section 102 of the CrPC or another relied-upon law.
- Earlier precedent
- Malcolm Murayis v State Bank of India