Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010101892026 2026:GAU-AS:11575 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2748/2026 ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE CHAN MIAH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 83,1 NO BORKUR UBI BANK, VILLAGE- BHURAGAON, P.O.- BHURAGAON, DISTRICT - MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN -782121 . VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, DELHI 110001 2:BANDHAN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER TATIKATA BRANCH TATIKATA PATHAR P.O.- MOIRABARI MORIGAON ASSAM 782126 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM, MR C GOGOI,MR. S. ALOM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 14.08.2026 Heard Mr. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an action on the part of the respondent Bandhan Bank authorities in keeping the petitioner’s Savings Bank Account no. 20200043587655 on hold. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a small businessman and for his business, he had availed a loan facility of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the respondent Bandhan Bank. The said loan amount was duly credited to his Bank Account partly. When the petitioner attempted to access the Bank Account, the petitioner discovered that the Bank Account has been kept on hold thereby, preventing him from carrying out any transactions. According to the petitioner, the balance in the Savings Bank Account as on 11.05.2026, was Rs. 3,35,706/-. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 Bank has submitted that he has received instructions to the effect that the debit freeze instructions were received from Gujarat Cyber Crime Cell, Ahmedabad to the effect that there were two suspicious transactions / credits in the Bank Account of the petitioner for Rs. 18,937/- and Rs. 1,700/-, that is, Rs. 20,637/- in total. He has submitted that as on date, though two complaints regarding suspicious transactions / credits amounting to Rs. 20,637/-, in total, are received, there is possibility of receiving further complaints of suspicious transactions / credits in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner, since there are already two suspicious transactions / credits in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. Mr. Sarma has further submitted that the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner 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. Page No.# 3/5 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 Savings Bank Account of the petitioner on hold / in debit-freeze condition is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of direction received from the investigating authorities. 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 suspicious transactions / credits, there is possibility of receiving more complaints as regards suspicious transactions / credits 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. 20,637/-. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, [1999] 7 SCC 685, took a view that the Bank Account of an 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 :- 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. Page No.# 4/5 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 impacts 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 transactions / credits, 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. 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. 20,637/- is to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities, by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 20,637/-, at this stage. In other words, the respondent Bank authority shall restrict the freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Bank Account only to the extent of Rs. 20,637/- and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the 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 Page No.# 5/5 law. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant