18.08.2026 Sl. no. DL 12 Court No. 25 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 13237 of 2026 In the matter of : VIKASH KUMAR SHAW … Petitioner VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Dutta Mr. Shamsher Ansari … Advocates For the Respondent no.1 / RBI : Mr. Debabrata Das Mr. A. Sarkar Mr. Pratik Acharjee … Advocates For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Sani Ojha Mr. Md. Minhajuddin … Advocates 1. Report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent / Indian Bank be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for an order directing the respondent/bank to defreeze the savings account of the petitioner being Account No.7503416699. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is maintaining the said account in the bank, but all of a sudden the bank has frozen the account of the petitioner without any Page 2 intimation or information to him. The petitioner has enquired from the bank and the bank has informed the petitioner that the bank has frozen the account of the petitioner on receipt of complaint from Cyber Crime Police Station. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/bank submits that the bank has frozen the account of the petitioner on receipt of online cyber complaint wherein it appears that the disputed transaction amount is Rs.1,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the bank further submits that the bank has no objection if this Court passes an order for defreezing the account of the petitioner as the bank has not received any correspondence from the cyber crime authority with regard to any further investigation or the account is further required for investigation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. 6. This Court finds that the disputed transaction amount is Rs.1,000/- only and the account was frozen by the bank on 30th April, 2026. During last four months, the investigating officer has not made any further correspondence with the bank. 7. Considering the above, this Court finds that the only disputed amount is Rs.1,000/- and no Page 3 further correspondence has been made by the investigating agency with the petitioner or the bank. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent/bank to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account by keeping the disputed said amount of Rs.1,000/- in lien. 9. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 10. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Krishna Rao, J. )