JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. F. Hoque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is a businessman by profession and running a business firm in the name of ‘D. S. Store’. For the said purpose, the petitioner is maintaining a Current Account bearing A/C No.8065279097 with the respondent Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) and he had approximate balance of Rs.3,09,619.38/- as on 04.11.2025. But on 04.07.2025 and 05.07.2025, a total amount of Rs.47,700/- deposited in his said Bank Account through 12 numbers of online transactions from unknown sources without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that while in the first week of September, 2025, the petitioner wanted to withdraw some money from his Bank Account, the petitioner came to know from the Bank that his said account was put on hold because of Cyber Police Complaint Nos. 30207250010500, 32407250022165, 31607250081920, 31907250131674, 31907250131674, 31307250047414, 32507250020560, 31207250007628, 31907250131674, 31607250080248 and 20807250047971. Thereafter, on 09.09.2025 the petitioner had submitted representation before the respondent No.3 requesting him to allow him to withdraw his own money from his Current Bank Account, but till date no action has been taken by the respondent No.3 and thereby causing undue financial hardships to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 3. Mr. F. Hoque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related to the aforesaid bank account committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits 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 an amount of Rs.47,700/- only which appears to be a part of some fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid current bank account of the petitioner which the petitioner had no role to play. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transaction in question involves an amount of Rs.47,700/- only which appears to be a part of some fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid current bank account of the petitioner which the petitioner had no role to play. 4. 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. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws: i) Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors . WP No. 25631/2024 [The High Court of Judicature at Madras] ii) Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Anr. WP (C) No. 17905/2024 & CM Appl. No. 2640/2025 [The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] iii) Kartik Yogeswar Chatur Vs. Union of India & Ors . Crl. Writ Petition No. 321/2025 [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur] 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Mr. M. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the directions of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. He has 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. 3 & 4. He has 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. 10. 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 No.2 from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions. 12. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid current bank 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 bonafide and innocent account holder. 13. This Court, accordingly observes that while the petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid current account, but the amount of Rs.47,700/- be kept in lien which the petitioner also admits that he has no knowledge how the said amounts were credited to his account. 14. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The current bank account of the petitioner bearing A/C No.8065279097 in Indian Bank, Machkhowa Branch is directed to be defreezed forthwith. (ii) The respondent No.2 shall keep a lien on the amount of Rs.47,700/- till further directions are not issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.