Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010218222025 2026:GAU-AS:9229 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5714/2025 KOUSHIK MEDHI S/O- NIREN MEDHI, R/O- VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR, POLICE STATION- PALASHBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP RURAL, ASSAM-781128. VERSUS THE UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS HEAD OFFICE, AT UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA. 2:THE UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE G.N.B. ROAD CHANDMARI ASSAM- 781003. 3:THE UNION BANK OF INDIA MIRZA BRANCH KAMRUP ASSAM-781125. 4:STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT GROUND FLOOR MAIN BLOCK SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA-695001. 5:OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE CYBER CRIME CELL Page No.# 2/8 POLICE HEADQUARTERS VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA-695010 6:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA) NORTH BLOCK GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 7:INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE I4C 5TH FLOOR NDCC-II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. S. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 24.06.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : NA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing Page No.# 3/8 on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is a businessman and transporter engaged in various works associated with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, particularly the transportation of Indane LPG cylinders by road. For the said purpose, the Petitioner maintains a Savings Account bearing No. 187810100046249 with the Respondent, Union Bank of India, Mirza Branch. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Savings Account maintained by him with the Union Bank of India ceased to be operational and reflected the remark ‘Account Frozen’. Thereafter, the Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, Mirza Branch, on 11.09.2025. Vide an email dated 12.09.2025, the Branch Manager informed the Petitioner that, upon receipt of a letter from the Inspector of Police, Thadiyittaparamb Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, Kerala, the Petitioner’s Savings Account had been placed under a debit freeze. 4. Upon enquiry, the Petitioner was informed that a notice under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 had been issued by the Inspector of Police, Thadiyittaparamb Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, Kerala. The said notice was issued Page No.# 4/8 pursuant to a complaint lodged by Mrs. Nissa K.A., wherein it was alleged that her husband had been cheated by certain persons who, by impersonation through online platforms, offered profits from a share-trading business through Telegram and WhatsApp and fraudulently induced him to transfer an amount of Rs. 26,90,000/- from his bank account to various bank accounts. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- had been credited to the Petitioner’s bank account through a mobile transaction. As per the information furnished to the Petitioner by the Respondent Bank, the said transaction of Rs. 40,000/- pertains to the disputed amount of Rs. 27,500/-. 5. The Petitioner, on 11.09.2025, submitted an application before the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mirza Branch, seeking the removal of the debit freeze from the Savings Account, save and except the disputed amount. However, the Respondent Bank has not taken any action thereon till date. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. D. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related Page No.# 5/8 to the aforesaid bank account. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the action has been taken without giving any prior notice to the Petitioner, which has caused immense prejudice to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transaction in question involves 27,500/- which appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid saving account of the Petitioner. 7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been direction for keeping in lien the disputed amounts and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts. 8. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws: (i) WP No. 25631/2024 (Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Madras]; ii) WP(C)/17905/2024 & CM Appl./2640/2025 (Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Union of India Anr.) [The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] & iii) Crl. Writ Pettition No. 321/2025 (Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur Page No.# 6/8 Vs. Union of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur]. 9. In the case of Mohammed Saifullah (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had observed that under the guise of investigation, order of freezing of the entire account without quantifying amount or period cannot be passed as the same would be in violation of the fundamental rights. 10. In the case of Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made an observation that a balance was required to be struck regarding the rights of a complainant vis-a-vis the rights of an innocent and unwary account holder who is made to suffer unwarranted hardships due to blanket freezing of bank account. 11. In the case of Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the aspect of the provisions of Section 106 of the BNSS vis-a-vis the order of attachment / freezing of a bank account. 12. Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the direction of the Respondent Nos. 5. He has Page No.# 7/8 submitted that at this stage it is not known about the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in which, the aforesaid account of the Petitioner may be involved and the amount quantified at this stage may not be the final amount. He has also submitted that in the event this Court grants any relief to the Petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in public interest. 13. After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing of the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been done on a complaint received by the Respondent Bank from the Inspector of Police, Thadiyittaparamb Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, Kerala. 14. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions. 15. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account in question with certain conditions. This Court is also of the view that in a given case, a balance is required to be struck between the interest of the investigation on cyber fraud which is creating a menace and the interest of a bona fide and innocent Page No.# 8/8 account holder. 16. This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Account, but the amount of Rs.27,500/- be kept in lien. 17. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (a) The Savings Account of the Petitioner bearing A/C No.187810100046249 in Union Bank of India, Mirza Branch is directed to be defreezed forthwith. (b) The Respondent No.1 shall keep a lien on the amount of Rs.27,500/- till further directions are not issued by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 8. (c) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.06.26 13:41:53 +05'30'