Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35985 (CAL)

MAMPI SHAW v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WPA/19476/2026 · 2026-08-25

Krishna Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S/L 13 25.08.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 19476 of 2026 Smt. Mampi Shaw Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Shamik Chatterjee Mr. Aditya Bikram Mahata Mr. Sahil Kabir Mr. Anirban Das … for the petitioner. Mr. Anindya Sundar Das … for the Union of India. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP Ms. Runu Mukherjee … for the State. Mr. Sumon Chakrabarty Mr. Sambhu Mondal Mr. Sudipta Mahapatra … for the respondent nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for defreezing the account of the petitioner. The petitioner is maintaining his savings account with the Bank of Baroda, Canning Branch, South 24 Parganas being Account No. 42248100061019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on May 24, 2025 on receipt of the report from the Cyber Crime Police Station of Karnataka Police, the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. When the petitioner contacted with the bank authorities with regard to the freezing of the account of the petitioner, the bank has informed the petitioner that the bank has received the report from the Cyber Crime Police, Karnataka with regard to the disputed transaction of Rs. 50/- from the account of the petitioner on May 24, 2025, the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. 2 3. The petitioner submits that subsequently, the petitioner has made several representations to the bank for defreezing the account of the petitioner by keeping Rs. 50/- in lien, in spite of the receipt of the request of the petitioner, the bank has not considered the same. The petitioner has also requested the investigating agency for submission of the report but in spite of the receipt of the request of the petitioner, the investigating agency has also not submitted any report whether the account of the petitioner is further required any investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the bank has freezed the account of the petitioner on receipt of the report from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Karnataka with regard to the disputed transaction of Rs. 50/-. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. This Court finds that since May 24, 2025 the account of the petitioner is freezed by the bank only on the allegation that the Cyber Crime Police Station, Karnataka made a complaint with respect of disputed amount of Rs. 50/- and thereafter no correspondences have been made by the police authorities with the bank for any other transaction. This Court also finds that after the month of May, 2025 there is no allegation against the petitioner for any further transaction of the amount from the account of the petitioner. 7. Considering the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 9 or any other competent authority of the Bank of Baroda, Canning Branch, South 24 Parganas to allow the petitioner to operate the bank 3 account by keeping the disputed amount of Rs. 50/- in lien. 8. WPA 19476 of 2026 is disposed of. 9. 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.)