Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010194472026 2026:GAU-AS:14446 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4964/2026 JUSMINA KHATUN W/O NUR JAMAL, R/O MATHAKATABANA CHAPA, P.O. JAMADARHAT, P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MHA, NORTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE OPPOSITE ASSAM SACHIVALAYA G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA TIKIKILLA BRANCH DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Ali, Advocate : Ms. N. Pervin, Advocate Page No.# 2/7 For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Medhi, CGC : Mr. D. Das, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.09.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : NA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. K. Medhi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner had opened a Savings Bank Account on 26.11.2024 with the State Bank of India, Tikrikilla Branch, District Dhubri, bearing Account No. 43559691650 and has been operating the said account regularly without any complaint from any quarter. To the utter surprise of the Petitioner, the said bank account was stopped from functioning by the Bank without informing the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Branch Manager to ascertain the reason for stopping the account from functioning. The Branch Manager Page No.# 3/7 informed the Petitioner that the Bank had received a complaint from the Ahmedabad City Karaj Police Station, Gujarat, regarding a fraudulent transaction through UPI amounting to Rs.10,000/- on 02.02.2026 in the said account. The disputed amount was put on hold on 14.02.2026 and on the basis of the said complaint, the account was frozen. 3. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner requested the Respondent No.3 to allow her to operate her bank account. However, despite repeated requests, no steps have been taken by the Respondent No.3 to unfreeze the account of the Petitioner and the same continues to remain frozen till date. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related to the aforesaid bank account. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the action has been taken without giving any prior notice to the Petitioner, which has caused immense prejudice to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transaction in question involves Rs.10,000/- Page No.# 4/7 which appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid savings account of the Petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been direction for keeping in lien the disputed amounts and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts. 5. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws: i) WP No. 25631/2024 (Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Madras]; ii) WP(C)/17905/2024 & CM Appl./2640/2025 (Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Union of India Anr.) [The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] & iii) Crl. Writ Pettition No. 321/2025 (Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur Vs. Union of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur]. 6. In the case of Mohammed Saifullah (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had observed that under the guise of investigation, order of freezing of the entire account without quantifying amount Page No.# 5/7 or period cannot be passed as the same would be in violation of the fundamental rights. 7. In the case of Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made an observation that a balance was required to be struck regarding the rights of a complainant vis- a-vis the rights of an innocent and unwary account holder who is made to suffer unwarranted hardships due to blanket freezing of bank account. 8. In the case of Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the aspect of the provisions of Section 106 of the BNSS vis-a-vis the order of attachment / freezing of a bank account. 9. Mr. D. Das, learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the direction of the Ahmedabad City Karaj Police Station, Gujarat. He has submitted that at this stage, it is not known about the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in which, the aforesaid account of the Petitioner may be involved and the amount quantified at this stage may not be the final amount. He has also submitted that in the event this Court grants any relief Page No.# 6/7 to the Petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in public interest. 10. After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing of the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been done on a complaint received by the Respondent Bank from the Ahmedabad City Karaj Police Station, Gujarat. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions. 12. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account in question with certain conditions. This Court is also of the view that in a given case, a balance is required to be struck between the interest of the investigation on cyber fraud which is creating a menace and the interest of a bona fide and innocent account holder. 13. This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account, but the amount of Rs.10,000/- be kept in lien. Page No.# 7/7 14. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (a) The Savings Account of the Petitioner bearing A/C No. 43559691650 in State Bank of India, Tikrikilla Branch, Dhubri is directed to be defreezed forthwith. (b) The Respondent No.2 shall keep a lien on the amount of Rs.10,000/- till further directions are not issued by the Respondent No.1. (c) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.09.30 19:21:07 +05'30'