Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010104072026 2026:GAU-AS:14398 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2820/2026 SMTI KEYA SINGHA ROY DAUGHTER OF SWAPAN KUMAR SINGHA ROY, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.46, JOURNALIST COLONEY. JANAKPUR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19, POLICE STATION- DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PANBAZAR, STATION ROAD, GUWAHATI-01. 2:UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK OFFICE ADDRESS - UTKARSH TOWER NH-31 AIRPORT ROAD SEHMALPUR KAZI SARAI HARHUA VARANASI UTTAR PRADESH- 221105. 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK OFFICE ADDRESS- HOUSE NO.28 GROUND FLOOR PALTANBAZAR AM ROAD MANIPURI E ROAD OPPOSITE ZET TRAVELS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 Page No.# 2/6 4:THE SR INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CELL CID CB MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400001. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CYBER CELL CID CB NORTH DELHI-110007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A HUSSAIN, MR F HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA(R1), MR. H S BORAH(R1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 28.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. F Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 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 a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 1545017980032241 with the Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Guwahati Branch since 07.03.2024. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Bank Page No.# 3/6 Account was being operated without any interruption. However, since March 2026, the petitioner has not been able to undertake any debit transaction for the said account as the account has been subjected to debit restriction/freezing due to an alleged cyber crime online complaint/NCRP Acknowledgement No.31912250249952 dated 25.12.2025 received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting portal. 5. According to the petitioner, the alleged fraudulent transaction is to the extent of Rs. 1,560/-, whereas an amount of Rs. 19,522.41/- was lying in the said Bank Account. The petitioner accordingly, approached the concerned Branch Manager and also submitted multiple representations 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. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record. 7. 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. 8. Therefore, this Court would not be justifying in issuing any direction which may have the effect of frustrating or prejudicing the investigation. At the same time, it also appears that the amount presently kept under lien by the respondent Bank Page No.# 4/6 has been quantified at Rs. 1,560/- only and the materials on record do not indicate that the entire amount lying in the account represents the proceeds of the alleged fraudulent transaction or that the entire balance is required to remain under restraint for the purpose of the investigation. 9. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is required to be approached by maintaining a balance between the interests of bonafide investigation into cyber offence, which undoubtedly required effective measures for preservation of the suspected proceeds of crime and the right of an account holder to operate his Bank Account in respect of the amount which are not presently shown to be required for such investigation. 10. 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.1,560/- 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 the 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. 11. 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. Page No.# 5/6 12. Accordingly, the respondent Bank is directed to permit the petitioner to operate his Savings Bank Account bearing No. 1545017980032241, subject to the lien of Rs.1,560/- which shall continue until an appropriate order is passed by the competent investigating authority or until the lien is otherwise lawfully removed. 13. 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. 14. 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 of any fraudulent or unlawful transaction attributable to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid account. 15. 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. 16. The instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant