S/L 25 18.08.2026 Court. No. 25 sourav WPA 1648 of 2026 Subradip Dutta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee Ms. Sarmistha Basak … for the petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Bothra … for the State. Ms. Suchismita Ghosh Ms. Aradhita Banerjee … for R.B.I. Mr. Rajdatta Chattopadhyay Ms. Risha Das … for the respondent nos. 6 and 7. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent Bank to defreeze the account of the petitioner being the Savings Account No. 2846917023 of Kotak Mahindra Bank and to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is maintaining savings bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank but all of a sudden the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. The petitioner has made several correspondents with the Bank but the Bank has informed the petitioner that the Bank has received information from the Cyber Crime Police Station and accordingly, the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner on September 11, 2025. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 2 3. This Court has called for the report from the Bank. The Bank has submitted report and submits that initially, the Bank has received information from the Cyber Crime Police Station Basti, Uttar Pradesh with regard to the details of the account of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner has informed the details to the investigating agency and freezed the account of the petitioner. 4. Subsequently, the investigating agency has sent a notice under Sections 94 of the BNSS asking the details of several bank accounts including the details of the account of the petitioner. In compliance of the Section 94 of the BNSS, the Bank has submitted the details of the account including the details of the account of the petitioner. 5. The Bank submits that the disputed amount with regard to the account of the petitioner is only Rs. 2,000/-. The Bank further submits that the Bank has no objection if the Court has passed an order for defreezing the account of the petitioner. 6. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. 7. This Court finds that only the investigating agency has requested the Bank for providing the details of the account of the petitioner but while providing the details of the account of the petitioner, the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. The Bank has not produced any document that any investigating agency has requested the Bank for freezing of the account of the 3 petitioner or the Bank has received any order from any competent court for freezing of the account of the petitioner. 8. This Court also finds that the disputed amount is only Rs. 2,000/- and the Bank has already complied with the direction issued by the investigating agency by supplying the details of the account of the petitioner to the investigating agency. 9. Considering the above, this Court finds that in the month of September, 2025 the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner without any request of investigating authority or any order of Court. Since September, 2025 the petitioner is not in a position to operate the bank account. 10. The Bank is directed to defreeze the account of the petitioner by keeping the disputed amount of Rs. 2,000/- in lien and also to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account. 11. Accordingly, WPA 1648 of 2026 is disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)