Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010147152026 2026:GAU-AS:12281 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3798/2026 ABDUL WADUD S/O ABDUL SATTAR, R/O LATANI CHAPARI, P.O KAAIMARI, P.S RUPAHI HAT, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN -782140. VERSUS BANDHAN BANK AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, FI 11, ADVENTZ INFINITY, BN 5, STREET NUMBER 18, BN BLOCK, SECTOR V, BIDHANNAGAR, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 700091. 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER BANDHAN BANK AMONI BRANCH VILLAGE AND P.O AMONI P.S AMONI DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM PIN -782138 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MR. MD IMDAD,MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BANDHAN BANK, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 26-08-2026 Ms. F. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hussain, Page No.# 2/6 learned counsel on behalf of Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for both the respondents are present. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that he has received the necessary instructions. As it is submitted that in view of the issues involved, the writ petition be taken up for consideration, the notice is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is, accordingly, taken up for final consideration. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been maintaining a Current Bank Account no. 10190005943972 at Amoni Branch of the respondent Bandhan Bank Ltd. to carry out business transactions of a micro enterprise wherein the petitioner is the proprietor. The petitioner has stated that on and from 05.06.2026, the said Current Bank Account of the petitioner has been kept blocked entirely by the respondent Bank authorities, thereby, preventing the petitioner from carrying out any transaction. When the petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 and submitted an application requesting to unfreeze the Current Bank Account, the petitioner has been informed that on receipt of instructions regarding a suspicious transaction/credit of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 04.02.2026, instructions are placed to put the Current Bank Account in debit freeze condition. Due to the debit-freeze instructions, he has not been able to operate the Bank Account and as a result, it has affected him as he has not been able to carry out his day-to-day transactions. 4. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that he has received instructions to the effect that the debit-freeze instruction was received from Cyber-Centre of Excellence, CID, Crime, Gandhinagar, Gujarat to the effect that there is a suspicious transaction / credit in the Bank Account Page No.# 3/6 of the petitioner for Rs. 1,00,000/- and it had received a notice in this connection where a reference is made to Section 106, BNSS. He has submitted that though as on that only one complaint regarding suspicious transaction / credit amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- is received, there is possibility of receiving further complaints of suspicious transactions / credits in the Current Bank Account of the petitioner, since there is already a suspicious transaction / credit in the Current Bank Account of the petitioner. Mr. Hussain has further submitted that the Current 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. 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 on hold / in debit-freeze condition is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of direction received from the investigating authority. 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 the suspicious transaction / credit, 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. 1,00,000/-. Page No.# 4/6 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 [‘the CrPC’, for short] 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. 8. The provisions contained in Section 106, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are similar to the provision contained in Section 102, CrPC. 9. 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 Page No.# 5/6 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 1,00,000/- is to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities, by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 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. 1,00,000/- 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 Page No.# 6/6 competent authority in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant