Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010096602026 2026:GAU-AS:10472 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2689/2026 CIS MANAGEMENT SERVICE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR GOPAL CHANDRA DUTTA, S/O LT. GARJAI DUTTA, AGE 76 YEARS, R/O NAKATANI KALUGAON, P.O. BHARALUA TINIALI, P.S.GAURISAGAR, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN 785664 VERSUS UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, UJJIVAN SMALL BANK BHAWAN, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, AT GRAPE GARDEN, NO 27, 3RD CROSS, 18TH MAIN, KOROMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU, PIN 560095 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK LACHIT NAGAR BRANCH GUWAHATI SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK,H RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M SHARMA(R1,2), MR. M SHARMA, SC, UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK,MR. A HUSSAIN(R1,2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 2. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an action on the part of the respondent Ujjivan Small Finance Bank authorities in keeping the petitioner’s Current Bank Account no. 3512120040000408 in a debit-freezed condition. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern, M/s CIS Management Service which in the business of providing private security services. It is the case of the petitioner that for carrying out its day-to-day business transactions, the petitioner has been maintaining the Current Bank Account with the respondent no. 2 Bank since 16.09.2024. According to the petitioner, the balance in the Bank Account as on 07.01.2026 was Rs. 4,01,269.10. It is stated that the petitioner has been stopped from operating Current Bank Account since January, 2026 on the pretext that there was a suspicious transaction / credit of Rs. 2,000/- in the Current Bank Account. The petitioner has been informed that due to receipt of a complaint regarding such suspicious transaction / credit from the investigating agency, the Current Bank Account has been kept on hold. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank authorities has submitted that he has received instructions to the effect that the debit-freeze instruction was received through an investigating agency viz. Cyber Cell, Telengana regarding a suspicious transaction / credit in the Current Bank Account of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 2,000/-. He has submitted that as on date, only one complaint regarding suspicious transaction / credit amounting to Rs. 2,000/- has been received and since there is already a suspicious transaction / credit in the Bank Account of the petitioner, there is possibility of receiving Page No.# 3/5 further complaint of suspicious transaction / credit in the Current Bank Account of the petitioner. Mr. Sarma has further submitted that debit-freeze account can be put on hold also when the customer does not submit Know Your Customer [KYC] form in time and in the case in hand, the petitioner till date, has also not submitted KYC form. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondent Bank authorities in keeping the Current Bank Account of the petitioner in debit-freeze condition is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of direction received from the investigating authority, that is, Cyber Cell, Telengana. A power exercisable by the respondent Bank is not an independent power. The Bank apart from implementing the directions made by the investigating authorities, also acts as the custodian of Bank Accounts of the customers / account holders. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that in view of one suspicious transaction / credit, there is possibility of receiving more complaints as regards suspicious transaction / credit at a later point of time, such submission advanced on behalf of the respondent Bank, in the considered view of this Court, is not acceptable at this stage. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent Bank regarding possibility of receiving complaints in future cannot be a basis for keeping the entire amount in the concerned Bank Account of the petitioner on hold over and above Rs. 2,000/-. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case title State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, [1999] 7 SCC 685, was persuaded to take a view that the Bank Account of the accused or any of his relations is ‘property’ within the meaning of Section 102, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and a police officer can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence which the police officer is investigating into. 7. In M.T. Enrica Lexie and another vs. Doramma and others, [2012] 6 SCC 760, the Supreme Court has observed as under :- Page No.# 4/5 14. The police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102[1] and no other. 8. An order of freezing of a Bank Account of a person, thereby, restricting him from doing any transactions brings in serious and adverse consequences and impact on the person’s right to earn livelihood and/or to carry out business transactions. An order of freezing on the entire amount kept in deposit in a Bank Account when suspicion exists with regard to a part of the total deposit in such Bank Account due to any criminal investigation / complaint of suspicious transaction / credit, directly affects the person’s right to earn livelihood, which comes within the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution. When the investigating agency has suspicion about a specific transaction or amount credited to a Bank Account, it is not reasonable to freeze the Bank Account totally. The freezing of the entire Bank Account in such a situation, when the Account holder’s involvement as a culprit in a crime has not been prima facie established at the particular moment, is not justified. The object of the investigating authority, during the stage of investigation, is to seize the amount suspected to be involved in a crime. 9. It is not the projection of the Bank authorities that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in any criminal case. This Court is of the considered view that whenever a direction is received from the investigating authority specifying a particular amount, the Bank is required to place a lien to the extent specified by the investigating authority and is to permit the account holder to operate the concerned Bank Account in so far as the remaining balance in the Bank Account is concerned, unless the direction itself is for complete freezing of the Bank Account or there is a statutory mandate. Page No.# 5/5 10. Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the debit freeze / withhold instruction made by the investigating authority for the amount of Rs. 2,000/- is to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 2,000/- at this stage. Meaning thereby, the respondent Bank authority shall restrict freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Current Bank Account only to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Current Bank Account in respect of the balance amount lying credited thereof, subject to submission of the KYC form, and any other or further instructions made by any competent authority in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent, indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant