Inamul Hoque vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Mr. K. J. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. K. Sarmah, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Hassan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

The Petitioner herein is a contract worker by profession and undertakes contractual work at various locations across the State of Assam. For the said purpose, the Petitioner maintains a Savings Bank Account bearing No.505118210004021 with the Respondent No.2, i.e. the Bank of India, Morigaon Branch.

The case of the Petitioner herein is that the bank account of the Petitioner has been frozen since March 2026. Upon making enquiries with the officials of Respondent No. 2 Bank, the Petitioner was verbally intimated that the account had been frozen pursuant to an alleged communication received from the Cyber Crime Authorities in connection with a complaint regarding a transaction of Rs. 4,990/-. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner visited the branch on multiple occasions; however, the Respondent No. 2 failed to provide the necessary details as sought for by the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of a hearing, and instead, his bank account was arbitrarily frozen.

It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has submitted several representations and visited the office of Respondent No. 2 seeking a redressal of his grievances. 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.

Mr. K. J. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a contractor by profession and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related 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 said Bank Account of the Petitioner has a credit balance of Rs.40,790/- and the Petitioner is not being able to use the money lying in his Account which has caused extreme difficulties in the day to day running of his business and is also infringing his Fundamental Rights of Trade and Business as well as violation of livelihood.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been direction for keeping the disputed amounts in lien and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:

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.

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.

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.

Mr. A. Hassan, the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law. 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.

After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing of the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been done in connection with some complaints received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP).

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions.

This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings 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.

This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Bank Account, but the amount of Rs.4,990/- be kept in lien.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: