Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010026152026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7359/2025 NAZRUL ISLAM SO LATE AKBAR ALI RO VILL MADHUSOULMARI PART II PO MADHUSOULMARI PS GAURIPUR DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783331 VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE STATE BANK BHAWAN MADAME CAMA ROAD NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 2:STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE ASSAM NORTH EAST ZONE ZONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI ASSAM. 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA DHUBRI BRANCH DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301 Page No.# 2/9 4:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MHA NORTH BLOCK GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001 5:INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE I4C MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001 6:OFFICER IN CHARGE POLICE INSPECTOR (PI) CYBER CRIME CELL SHO EDATHALA PS DIST ERNAKULAM KERELA PIN 682561 7:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER SURVEILLANCE AND INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE WEST GANDHI MAIDAN PATNA BIHAR PIN-800001 ------------ BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Kashyab, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 20.07.2026 Page No.# 3/9 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : NA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Kashyab, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is a practicing Advocate since the year 2011 in the District of Dhubri and earns his livelihood solely through his lawful professional practice. The Petitioner also maintains a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 30968448585 with the State Bank of India, Dhubri Branch, which is regularly used for legitimate personal and professional transactions, including the receipt of professional fees and the repayment of loan installments and EMIs. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that, on 26.11.2025, he received multiple electronic intimation messages from the Respondent Bank informing him of the creation of ‘hold’ amounts of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,649/-, respectively, aggregating to Rs. 63,649/-, without any prior notice, order or explanation. Thereafter, the Petitioner met the Branch Manager Page No.# 4/9 and sought clarification regarding the said hold/freeze. He was informed that the hold/freeze had been imposed pursuant to an instruction generated through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), bearing Cyber Crime Case ID No. 829015817 and Acknowledgment No. 21506250016233. The Petitioner was further informed by the Respondent Bank that his entire Bank Account had been frozen pursuant to the said NCRP instruction and was advised to contact the Officer-in-Charge, Edathala Police Station, Kerala. However, no FIR, notice, seizure memo or judicial order was ever furnished to the Petitioner. 4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he immediately submitted representations dated 02.12.2025 and 12.12.2025 to the Officer-in-Charge, Cyber Crime Cell, Edathala Police Station, Kerala, as well as to the Respondent Bank, seeking removal of the freeze on his Bank Account. However, no action was taken by the Respondent Bank. Upon receipt of the said representations, a Police Inspector of the Cyber Crime Branch informed the Petitioner that an ejahar had been lodged by a lady alleging that she had lost approximately Rs.2,00,000/- from her Bank Account as a result of a cyber crime. It was further informed that, during the course of the investigation, it was found that the defrauded amount had traversed through several Bank Accounts and that a portion thereof Page No.# 5/9 had ultimately been credited to the Bank Account maintained by the Petitioner. The said Police Inspector, however, clarified that the Petitioner was innocent and was in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offence. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted another representation dated 03.12.2025 to the Respondent Bank Authorities. However, the Petitioner's repeated requests were declined, and he was informed that the Bank was merely acting upon the instructions of the Cyber Police and, therefore, was not in a position to de-freeze his Bank Account. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner is a practicing Advocate and that there has been no fraudulent transaction of any kind in relation to the aforesaid Bank Account. The learned counsel further submitted that the action of freezing the Petitioner's Bank Account was taken without issuing any prior notice to him, thereby causing immense prejudice. It was further submitted that the transaction in question involves an amount of Rs.63,649/-, which appears to have been treated as part of a fraudulent transaction involving the Petitioner's Savings Bank Account. However, according to the learned counsel, the Petitioner has no connection whatsoever with Page No.# 6/9 the alleged fraudulent transaction. 6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been direction for keeping in lien the disputed amounts and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws: (i) WP No. 25631/2024 (Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Madras]; (ii) WP(C)/17905/2024 & CM Appl./2640/2025 (Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Union of India Anr.) [The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] & (iii) Crl. Writ Pettition No. 321/2025 (Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur Vs. Union of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur]. 8. In the case of Mohammed Saifullah (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had observed that under the guise of investigation, order of freezing of the entire account without Page No.# 7/9 quantifying amount or period cannot be passed as the same would be in violation of the fundamental rights. 9. In the case of Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made an observation that a balance was required to be struck regarding the rights of a complainant vis-a-vis the rights of an innocent and unwary account holder who is made to suffer unwarranted hardships due to blanket freezing of bank account. 10. In the case of Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the aspect of the provisions of Section 106 of the BNSS vis-a-vis the order of attachment / freezing of a bank account. 11. Mr. K. Kashyab, the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the instruction generated through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. He has submitted that at this stage it is not known about the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in which, the aforesaid account of the Petitioner may be involved and the amount quantified at this stage may not be the final amount. He has also submitted that in the event this Court grants Page No.# 8/9 any relief to the Petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in public interest. 12. After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing of the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been done upon instructions received from National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions. 14. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account in question with certain conditions. This Court is also of the view that in a given case, a balance is required to be struck between the interest of the investigation on cyber fraud which is creating a menace and the interest of a bona fide and innocent account holder. 15. This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account, but the amount of Rs.63,649/- be kept in lien. Page No.# 9/9 16. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (a) The Savings Account of the Petitioner bearing A/C No.30968448585 in the State Bank of India, Dhubri Branch is directed to be defreezed forthwith. (b) The Respondent No.1 shall keep a lien on the amount of Rs.63,649/- till further directions are not issued by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. (c) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.07.23 11:11:15 +05'30'