Mohammad Hussain Bohra vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of Malcolm Murayis and Archana were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. The Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 1,500/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The petitioner's bank account was to be unfrozen, allowing him to operate it. The Court further stipulated that if any other complaint was received by the bank concerning other entries, the bank could take appropriate action in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Government. The FD amount was to be liquidated only after orders were passed by a competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If no such orders were received within this period, the amount in FD could be withdrawn by the petitioner, with intimation to the police agency. The ratio decidendi is that while law enforcement agencies have a duty to investigate, bank accounts should not be frozen mechanically, and a balance must be struck between investigation needs and the account holder's rights, adhering to established SOPs and procedural safeguards.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Hussain Bohra, filed a writ petition seeking to unfreeze his savings bank account (No. 50170009804227) held with Bandhan Bank (Respondent No. 3). He also requested that a hold be placed strictly on the disputed sum of Rs. 1,500/-, allowing him to operate the remainder of the account. The petitioner argued that his case was covered by previous High Court judgments, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No.1100 of 2024) and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (dated 27.07.2026). These judgments dealt with similar issues of bank accounts being frozen by police authorities, often without proper notice or adherence to procedures.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to direct a bank to unfreeze a savings bank account and allow partial operation when the account has been frozen based on intimation from law enforcement agencies, and if so, under what conditions? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that his situation is analogous to the cases decided in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, where the High Court intervened to provide relief. He relied on these precedents to argue for the unfreezing of his account, with a specific restriction on the disputed amount. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the State or other respondents. However, the context implies that the State, through its agencies, initiated the freezing of the account. The banks' position, as seen in the cited judgments, is typically that they act on the instructions of investigating authorities.