WP(C)/1794/2026 of ASHISH BISWAS Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. on 12 July 2026

GAHC010063072026

2026:GAU-AS:9551

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1794/2026 ASHISH BISWAS S/O GOSTO BIHARI BISWAS R/O S B ROAD, JAFFARPUR NEAR KUNDUBARI, PANCHANAN TALA, NONA CHANDAN PUKUR, TITAGARH, NORTH TWENTY FLOUR PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL PIN-700122. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, (MHA) NORTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE (14C) 5THFLOOR NDCC-II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001. 3:AXIS BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE 7TH FLOOR C-2 WADIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG WORLI MUMBAI PIN-400025.

4:AXIS BANK BARRACKPORE BRANCH BARRACPORE SHOPING ARCADE 4(2) S N BANERJEE ROAD NEAR CHAMPA CINEMA HALL WEST BENGAL PIN-700120 5:AXIS BANK GROUND FLOOR CHIBBER HOUSE G.S. ROAD ANANDA NAGAR CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005 6:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE AZARA POLICE STATION GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781017 7:CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781001 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Mitra Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. P Das for respondent Nos.4 & 5 Mr. HK Hazarika, Govt. Advocate

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 13.07.2026

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : No Pronounced

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Das, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e. the Axis Bank; Mr. HK Hazarika, the learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner is working as a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Sr. ALP) under the Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Govt. of India. The petitioner maintains a savings Bank Account bearing Account No.436010100278362 with the respondent No.4 i.e. Axis Bank, Barrackpore Branch, West Bengal.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner has been operating the aforesaid account bearing Account No.436010100278362 since 2016, without any interruption. However, the petitioner while trying to access the aforesaid bank account was not allowed to carry out any transactions from August 2025. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that his aforesaid account was freezed on instructions from the Cyber Crime Division of Assam Police i.e. the respondent Nos.6 and 7. The petitioner was thereafter provided with a copy of the Complaint details bearing NCCRP Acknowledgment No.30406250005487 lodged by one Mompee Sarma Baruah with the Officer-in-Charge, Azara Police Station, Assam wherein a transaction of Rs.3,000/- was credited to the petitioner’s account on 05.05.2025 and the said amount of Rs.3000/- was shown as disputed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the said bank account bearing Account No.436010100278362 is the salary account of the petitioner under the Ministry of Railways wherein his monthly salary is credited, the petitioner is facing extreme hardship for not being able to operate the same. The petitioner has also submitted representations to the Respondent Authorities, however, to no avail. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Mr. S Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted the said amount of Rs.3000/- was credited to the petitioner’s account as a payout received from an online gaming application and the said transaction is purely bona fide in nature and the petitioner had no role with the gaming app and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related to the aforesaid bank account. 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 too meager amount of Rs.3000/- which appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid saving account of the petitioner.

6. 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 amount and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts.

7. In support of his 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 Vs. Union of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur].

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Mr. P Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e. the respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the direction of the respondent authorities. The learned counsel 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. Mr. P Das, the learned counsel further submitted that in the event this Court grants any relief to the petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in public interest.

12. 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 under the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

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

14. 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 account holder.

15. This Court, accordingly observes that while the petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid savings account bearing Account No.436010100278362 with the Axis Bank Barrackpore Branch, West Bengal, but the amount of Rs.3000/- be kept in lien which the petitioner also admits that he has no knowledge how the said amount was credited to his account.

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

(a) . The Savings Account of the petitioner bearing Account No.436010100278362 with the Axis Bank, Barrackpore Branch, West Bengal is directed to be defreezed forthwith.

(b) . The respondent No.4 shall keep a lien on the amount of Rs.3000/- respectively till further directions are not issued by the respondent authorities.

(c) . There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE

Comparing Assistant