Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010087102026 2026:GAU-AS:11811 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2374/2026 SHAHANUR ISLAM S/O ROUSHAN ALI, VILL- RAMHARIR CHAR, P.O. AND P.S.- GOALPARA, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, , ASSAM VERSUS THE BANK OF INDIA AND 4 ORS HEAD OFFICE, STAR HOUSE, C-5, 'G' BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA (EAST) MUMBAI- 400051 2:THE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE SAIKIA COMMERCIAL COMP SREE NAGAR CHRISTANBASTI GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE BANK OF INDIA GOALPARA BRANCH BAPUJI NAGAR AGIA ROAD P.O. AND P.S.- GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101 4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CYBER POLICE STATION NAGPUR CITY PATEL BUNGALOW CHHAONI Page No.# 2/5 SADAR NAGPUR- 440001 MAHARASTRA 5:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA) NORTH BLOCK GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED,MISS. S PARBIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. A DHANUKA(R1,2,3),MR. A GANGULY(R1,2,3) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 19-08-2026 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Considering the nature of the controversy involved and the materials placed on record, the present petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The case projected by the petitioner in brief is that he is carrying on a business and is maintaining Savings Bank Account bearing No. 502410110010182 with the Bank of India, Goalpara Branch since 22.09.2023. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that said Bank Account was being operated without any interruption. However, since March 2026, the petitioner has not been able to undertake debit transaction for the said account as the account has been subjected Page No.# 3/5 to debit restriction/freezing pursuant to the Notice dated 15.03.2026 received from the Cyber Police Station, Nagpur City in connection with a Cyber Complaint. 5. According to the petitioner, alleged fraudulent transaction is to the extent of Rs. 44,430.94/-, whereas an amount of Rs. 9,30,482.46/- was lying in the said Bank Account. The petitioner accordingly, approached the concerned Branch Manager and also submitted a representation on 17.04.2026 praying for removal of the debit restriction and for permitting him to operate the account. As no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The respondent Bank has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The stand taken therein is that the account was subjected to a lien pursuant to the information/instruction received from the Cyber Police Station, Nagpur City. It is further pleaded that as per the latest position, the amount under lien in the account is Rs. 71,413.24/-; that certain credits received in the said account appear to have emanated from entities which appears to be software/online firm accounts and may possibly be connected with online gaming/loan firms. According to the Bank, however, the matter is required to be investigated by the competent Investigating Authority. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the action of the respondent Bank was initiated on the basis of the information/instruction received from the Law & Enforcement Agency in connection with the investigation of a Cyber offence. 9. Therefore, this Court would not be justifying in issuing any direction which may have effect of frustrating or prejudicing the investigation. At the same time, it also appears from the affidavit of the respondent Bank that the amount presently kept under lien has been quantified at Rs. 71,413.24/- and the materials on records do not indicate that the entire amount lying in the account represents the proceeds of alleged fraudulent transaction or that the entire balance is required to remain under restraint Page No.# 4/5 for the purpose of the investigation. 10. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is required to be approached by maintaining the balance between the interest of bonafide investigation into Cyber offence which undoubtedly required effective measures for preservation of the suspected proceeds of crime and the right of an accountholder to operate his Bank Account in respect of the amount which are not presently shown to be required for such investigation. 11. A complete restraint of the operation of the account notwithstanding the fact that the respondent Bank itself has presently quantified the lien amount at Rs.71,413.24/- in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not warranted. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the stand of the respondent Bank that certain transactions in the said account require scrutiny and that the petitioner has not furnished all documents sought to establish the nature of his business activities. Those are the matters which may appropriately be examined by the competent investigating agency. 12. The present order therefore shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the nature of legality of the present transactions in the account or on the merit of any investigation. 13. Accordingly, the respondent Bank is directed to permit the petitioner to operate his Savings Bank Account bearing No. 502410110010182, subject to the lien of Rs.71,413.24/-, which shall continue until appropriate order is passed by the competent investigating authority or until the lien is otherwise lawfully removed. 14. The respondent Bank shall, however, be at liberty to act upon any further lawful order or instruction issued by the competent investigating agency or any Court of competent jurisdiction in connection with the investigation. 15. The petitioner shall also furnish an appropriate undertaking/Bond before the respondent Bank to indemnify against any loss or liability, which may arise on account Page No.# 5/5 of any fraudulent or unlawful transaction attributable to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid account. 16. It is made clear that this order shall not prevent the competent investigating agency from proceeding with the investigation in accordance with law including taking steps in respect of the account as may be permissible under law. 17. The instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant