Page No. 1/3 GAHC010092462026 2026:GAU-AS:9226 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2669/2026 SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O MOJIBUR RAHMAN, R/O HOUSE NO. 92, WARD NO. 5, VILLAGE- MOIRABARI, P.O. MOIRABARI, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782126 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, NORTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, DELHI- 110001 2:BANDHAN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER TATIKATA BRANCH TATIKATA PATHAR P.O. MOIRABARI MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM, MR. K DEKA,MR C GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 24.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Page No. 2/3 2. The petitioner has stated that he has been maintaining a Savings Bank Account no. 50170010314537 at Tatikata Branch, Moirabari, Morigaon of Bandhan Bank [the respondent no. 2]. On 09.05.2026, the Bank Account showed a balance of ₹ 25,930/-. The petitioner is a small businessman and the proprietor of M/s Assam Hardware in Moirabari and he has been carrying out his business transaction through the said Bank Account. The petitioner has stated that the said Bank Account has been kept freezed by the respondent no. 2 on the pretext that a cyber complaint has been received to the effect that there is a suspicious credit of ₹ 985/- in the Bank Account of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted, on instruction, that there is a suspicious transaction involving an amount of ₹ 985/-. He has further submitted that at the time of keeping the Bank Account on hold, the deposit in the Bank Account of the petitioner was above ₹ 985/-. He has submitted that the debit freeze instruction had to be made in view of the information received that a complaint has been registered in connection with the suspicious transaction in the NCRP from Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. He has informed that apart from the instructions received with regard to the said suspicious transaction, no other instruction has been received till date. 4. Having heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondent Bank in keeping the Bank Account of the petitioner freezed is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of directions received from the investigating agency from Maharashtra through NCRP. The power exercised by the respondent Bank is not an independent power. The Bank apart from implementing the directions made by the investigating agency, also acts as the custodian of the customers’ Bank Accounts. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that in view of the suspicious transaction, there is possibility of more complaints as regards suspicious transactions at a later point of time, such submission, advanced on behalf of the respondent Bank, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be accepted. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent Bank regarding receipt of instruction in future cannot be a basis for keeping the entire amount in the concerned Bank Page No. 3/3 Account of the petitioner on hold, over and above ₹ 985/-. 5. This Court is of the considered view that whenever a direction is received from any investigating agency specifying a particular amount, the Bank is required to place a lien to the extent specified by the investigating agency and is to permit the account holder to operate the concerned Bank Account in so far as the remaining balance in the Bank Account is concerned, unless the direction itself is for complete freezing of the Bank Account or there is a statutory mandate. 6. Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the debit freeze/withhold instruction made by the investigating agency for the amount of ₹ 985/- is to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities by keeping a lien over the said amount of ₹ 985/- at this stage. Meaning thereby, the respondent no. 2 Bank shall restrict freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Bank Account only to the extent of ₹ 985/- and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Bank Account in respect of the balance amount lying credited thereof, subject to any further instruction made, as permissible under the law, by any competent authority. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant