WP(C)/2409/2026 of HAFIJUR CHOUDHURY Vs THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS on 27 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 28.09.2026

1. Heard Mr. R Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Considering the nature of the controversy involved and the materials placed on record, the present petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The case projected by the petitioner in brief is that he is carrying on a business and is maintaining Savings Bank Account bearing No. 35813514130 with the State Bank of India, Kalgachia Branch at Barpeta.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Bank Account was blocked/kept on hold without any reason or notice. The petitioner accordingly, approached the concerned Branch Manager on many occasions praying for removal of the debit restriction and for permitting him to operate the account. As no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The respondent Bank has filed an affidavit-in- opposition. The stand taken therein is that the account was subjected to a lien pursuant to two complaints/information received from the Cyber Crime Central, Faridabad, Haryana on 11.03.2026 and Cyber Crime Police Station East Region, Brihan Mumbai City, Maharashtra on 06.12.2025. It is further pleaded that as per the latest position, the amounts under lien on the account is Rs.884/- and Rs.1300/-; that the account of the petitioner was flagged in the suspect registry on 26.03.2026 as a suspected mule account and the nature, volume and pattern of transactions carried out through the said account were not commensurate with and were inconsistent with the customer profile, occupation and annual income declared by the petitioner. However, according to the Bank, the matter is required to be investigated by the competent Investigating Authority.

6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the action of the respondent Bank was initiated on the basis of the information/instruction received from the Law & Enforcement Agency in connection with the investigation of a Cyber offence.

8. Therefore, this Court would not be justified in issuing any direction which may have effect of frustrating or prejudicing the investigation. At the same time, it also appears from the affidavit of the respondent Bank that the amount presently kept under lien has been quantified at Rs. 884/- and Rs.1300/- and the materials on record do not indicate that the entire amount lying in the account represents the proceeds of the alleged fraudulent transaction or that the entire balance is required to remain under restraint for the purpose of the investigation.

9. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is required to be approached by maintaining the balance between the interest of bona-fide investigation into the Cyber offence which undoubtedly required effective measures for preservation of the suspected proceeds of crime and the right of an account holder to operate his Bank Account in respect of the amount which are not presently shown to be required for such investigation.

10. A complete restraint on the operation of the account notwithstanding the fact that the respondent Bank itself has presently quantified the lien amount at Rs.884/- and Rs.1300/- in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not warranted. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the stand of the respondent Bank that certain transactions in the said account require scrutiny and that the petitioner has not furnished all documents sought to establish the nature of his business activities. Those are the matters which may appropriately be examined by the competent investigating agency.

11. The present order, therefore, shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the nature of legality of the present transactions in the account or on the merit of any investigation.

12. Accordingly, the respondent Bank is directed to permit the petitioner to operate his Savings Bank Account bearing No.

35813514130, subject to the lien of Rs.884/- and Rs.1300/-, which shall continue until an appropriate order is passed by the competent investigating authority or until the liens are otherwise lawfully removed.

13. The respondent Bank shall, however, be at liberty to act upon any further lawful order or instruction issued by the competent investigating agency or any Court of competent jurisdiction in connection with the investigation.

14. The petitioner shall also furnish an appropriate undertaking/bond before the respondent Bank to indemnify against any loss or liability, which may arise on account of any fraudulent or unlawful transaction attributable to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid account.

15. It is made clear that this order shall not prevent the competent investigating agency from proceeding with the investigation in accordance with law including taking steps in respect of the account as may be permissible under law.

16. The instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant