Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010085222026 2026:GAU-AS:13660 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2336/2026 RAFIQUL HASSAN S/O ISLAM UDDIN , R/O ALOPATI CHAR, KALARDIA, PO- NAGARBERA, PS- ALOPATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781127 VERSUS THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK BHAWAN, CORPORATE CENTRE, MADAM CAMA MARG, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN 400021, EMAIL- gm.customer@sbi.co.in/pno@sbi.co.in 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER DHUPDHARA BRANCH STATE BANK OF INDIA PO- DHUPDHARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783123 EMAIL- sbi.09437@sbi.co.in 3:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI PIN 110001 4:THE INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT OF INDIA 5TH FLOOR Page No.# 2/6 NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI PIN 110001 5:THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI TN PIN- 600009 EMAIL- homesec@tn.gov.in 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TAMIL NADU KAILASAPURAM MYLAPORE CHENNAI TAMIL NADU PIN 600004 EMAIL- dgp@tn.gov.in 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NILGIRIS UDHAGAMANDALAM (OOTY) DISTRICT- NILGIRIS TAMIL NADU PIN 643001 EMAIL- spnilgiri@yahoo.co.in 8:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) KOTAGIRI POLICE STATION DONNINGTON KOTAGIRI DISTRICT- NILGIRIS TAMIL NADU PIN 643217 EMAIL- sho.kothagiri@tncctns.gov.i Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM,MS. F H AHMED,MRS. S Y AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., H. BORUAH,MR. H BURAGOHAIN,MS. N CHOUDHURY (R1, R2),MR K KASHYAB (R1, R2),MR. J BARUAH (R1, R2),MR. S DUTTA (R1, R2) Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2. As per the case projected by the petitioner, the petitioner has been maintaining a Current Bank Account no. 39134083704 at Dhupdhara Branch of the respondent State Bank of India [the respondent no. 2]. The petitioner has stated that since November, 2025, the said Bank Account of the petitioner has been kept blocked entirely by the respondent authorities, thereby, preventing him from carrying out any transaction through the said Bank Account. When the petitioner approached the respondent Bank to enquire about the reason for keeping the Bank Account blocked entirely, the petitioner was informed by the respondent no. 2 by a Letter dated 04.11.2025 that the Current Bank Account of the petitioner had been kept blocked due to a suspicious transaction / credit amounting to Rs. 1,500/-, as reported in a Cyber Complaint no. 22906250047544. The petitioner submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 2 on 09.02.2026 to unfreeze the Current Bank at least partially by keeping an amount of Rs. 1,500/- lien to allow the petitioner to operate the said Bank Account during the course of investigation of Cyber Complaint no. 22906250047544. No action is found to have been taken by the respondent Bank authorities in that connection. 3. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank authorities has submitted that he has received instructions that the debit-freeze instruction was received from the Cyber Cell, Tamil Nadu Police to the effect that there is a suspicious transaction / credit of Rs. 1,500/- and it had received a notice in that connection from Cyber Cell Tamil Nadu. He has submitted that though as on that only one complaint regarding suspicious transaction / credit amounting to Rs. 1,500/- is received, there is possibility of receiving Page No.# 4/6 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. Buragohain 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. 4. 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. 1,500/-. 5. 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. 6. In M.T. Enrica Lexie and another vs. Doramma and others, [2012] 6 SCC 760, the Supreme Court has observed as under :- Page No.# 5/6 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. 7. The provisions contained in Section 106, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are similar to the provision contained in Section 102, CrPC. 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 respondent Bank authorities that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in any criminal case. The other respondents have not taken part in the present proceedings so far. 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 Page No.# 6/6 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. 1,500/- is to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities, by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 1,500/-, 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. 1,500/- 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 law. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2026.09.17 11:03:07 +05'30'