S/L 11 24.08.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 12925 of 2026 Sadhana Alankar House & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Amarnath Sen Mr. Malay Dhar Mr. Biswajit Sarkar … for the petitioners. Mrs. Sudipa Banerjee Ms. Manisha Paswan … for the State. 1. The petitioner has filed the present application praying for a direction upon the Bank for defreezing the account of the petitioner being Current Account No.50376371725 maintained with the Indian Bank, Jadavpur Branch. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is maintaining the above mentioned current account in the Indian Bank, Jadavpur Branch. On May 24, 2026 the Station Officer, Patashpur, Purba Medinipur has directed the Bank that the account of the petitioner is involved with regard to the two disputed transactions of Rs.44,000/- and Rs.22,000/-, on the receipt of the report from the police cyber crime authority, the Bank has freezed the total account of the petitioner due to which the petitioner is not in a position to operate the Bank Account for which the business of the petitioner is getting hampered. 3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation to the Bank Authority as well as the Police Authority but none of the authorities have taken any steps for defreezing the account of the petitioner. 2 Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 4. The petitioner has filed the affidavit-of-service showing service of notice upon all the authorities but none appears on behalf of the Bank instead of service of notice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has filed a report wherein it is mentioned that National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal pertaining to the Patashpur Police Station, Purba Medinipur has received a complaint from NCRRP Portal lodged by one Hiranmoy Pahari, accordingly, a case has been initiated. Mr. Pahari had filed a miscellaneous petition before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai being Misc. Case No. 106 of 2026 praying for refund of the amount of Rs. 66,000/- and the application filed by Mr. Pahari is pending before the learned Magistrate for disposal. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that till date, the learned Magistrate has not decided whether the complainant is entitled to get the said amount and, as such, at this state, if this Court allow the petitioner to operate the bank account, it is not possible for the bank to recover the said amount. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed amount of Rs. 66,000/- be kept in lien and the petitioner may be allowed to operate the bank account so that the petitioner can run his business smoothly without any interference by the bank. 8. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds that the disputed amount is Rs. 66,000/-. The complainant who 3 has lodged the complaint he has already filed an application before the learned Magistrate for refund of the said amount. The application filed by the complainant is pending before the learned Magistrate. It is found that the complainant is claiming only Rs. 66,000/- and the disputed amount is only Rs. 66,000/-. 9. In view of the above, the Bank is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 66,000/- in lien and to defreeze the account of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account. 10. Accordingly, WPA 12925 of 2026 is disposed of. 11. 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.)