Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010143742026 2026:GAU-AS:12127 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3670/2026 ZIAUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUL MANNAF, R/O- HOUSE NO. 10, SHANTI PATH, BORSOJAI, P.O. BELTOLA, P.S. HATIGAON, DISTRICT- KAMRUP M, GUWAHATI -781028, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA),GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE OPPOSITE ASSAM SECRETARIAT G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM. 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA HATIGAON CHARIALI BRANCH P.S. HATIGAON DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN- 781038. 4:INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE 5TH FLOOR NDCC-II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD Page No.# 2/3 NEW DELHI-110001. 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE KOTWALI POLICE STATION AMRAVATI CITY MAHARASHTRA PIN- 444606. 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BADLAPUR WEST POLICE STATION THANE CITY MAHARASHTRA-421503. 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE GANGYAL POLICE STATION DISTRICT JAMMU JAMMU KASHMIR 180010 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE GANGYAL POLICE STATION DIST. JAMMU JAMMU AND KASHMIR PIN- 180010 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K I MAZUMDER, MR. N J GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI(C.G.C),MISS. R. DAS(R2,3),MS. N CHOUDHURY(R2,3),MR. J BARUAH(R2,3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 24.08.2026 Heard Mr. K.I. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition saying that the respondent Bank authorities had prevented the petitioner from operating his Savings Bank Account no. 20004917036 maintained with the respondent no. 3 by keeping the Account debit-freezed wholly. It was the contention of the petitioner that if any complaint regarding Page No.# 3/3 any suspicious transaction or credit was received by the respondent Bank authorities for any amount then the respondent Bank authorities could have permitted the petitioner to operate the Bank Account keeping lien on the amount to the extent for which complaints were received regarding suspicious transaction/credit. The petitioner has averred that as per his information, three complaints were received alleging suspicious transactions/credits amounting to Rs. 3,090/- in total against the Bank Account of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has referred to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3. He has submitted that the Bank authorities upon enquiry, have removed the complete hold placed on the petitioner’s Account earlier, and are presently keeping a hold on the Savings Bank Account no. 20004917036 of the petitioner only to the extent of the amount covered under the police complaints received so far, that is, to the extent of Rs. 3,090/- only, and therefore, the petitioner, at present, is at liberty to operate his Bank Account and hold is only applicable to his Account up to the amount in dispute, that is, Rs. 3,090/-. 4. In view of the above stand taken by the respondent Bank authorities, this writ petition is disposed of by observing that the respondent Bank authorities shall restrict the freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Savings Bank Account only to the extent of Rs. 3,090/- and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Savings Bank Account no. 20004917036 in respect of the balance amount lying credited thereof, subject to submission of KYC form, and any other or further instructions made by the competent authority in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant