Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1195/2026 of RAKIBUL ISLAM Vs BANK OF BARODA AND 4 ORS on 21 June 2026
GAHC010034132026 2026:GAU-AS:9108 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1195/2026 RAKIBUL ISLAM S/O NOIMUDDIN SHEIKH, S.K, BORORAVATARY, PT. II, P.O. - RAVATARY, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783127 VERSUS BANK OF BARODA AND 4 ORS HEAD
GAHC010034132026
2026:GAU-AS:9108
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1195/2026
RAKIBUL ISLAM
S/O NOIMUDDIN SHEIKH, S.K, BORORAVATARY, PT. II, P.O. - RAVATARY, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783127
VERSUS
BANK OF BARODA AND 4 ORS
HEAD OFFICE, BARODA BHAWAN, 7TH FLOOR,R.C. DUTT
ROAD,ALKAPURI, VADODARA BARODA,GUJRAT-390007, INDIA.
2:BANK OF BARODA
REGIONAL OFFICE
LOHIA MANSION
G.S ROAD BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
3:BRANCH MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA
DHUBRI BRANCH
GROUND FLOOR
GTB ROAD
NEAR BOC
PETROL PUMP
DHUBRI
ASSAM
4:THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA)
NORTH BLOCK
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
5:NODAL OFFICER
CYBER CELL OFFICE
ASSAM
O/O THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ULUBARI
ASSAM
PIN CODE- 781007
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN,N PERVIN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,MR. Z ISLAM(R1,2,3),MR. U
SAIKIA(R1,2,3)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 22.06.2026
Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. U. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 – 3; and Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has been maintaining a Savings Bank Account no. 64040100000792 at Dhubri Branch of the respondent Bank of Baroda since 01.07.2022.
3. The petitioner has averred that when he visited the Dhubri Branch in August, 2025, the respondent no. 3 informed him that the Bank Account had been freezed on the basis of cyber complaints received from Vaishali, Hajipur, Bihar and Shorapur Police Station, Karnataka. The petitioner was informed that the Bank Account has been freezed due to three fraudulent transactions.
4. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 – 3 has submitted, on instruction, that there are altogether three suspicious transactions involving amount of Rs. 22,672.83 [= Rs. 2,250.00 + Rs. 5,000.00 + Rs. 15,422.83]. He has further submitted that the debit freeze instruction had to be made in view of the instructions received that complaints were received in connection with the said three suspicious transactions in the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal [NCRP] from Cybercrime Police Station, Vaishali, Hajipur, Bihar and Shorapur Police Station, Karnataka. He has submitted further that apart from the instructions received with regard to the said transactions amounting to Rs. 22,672.83, no other instructions have been received till date by the respondent Bank.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondent Bank in keeping the Bank Account of the petitioner freezed is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of directions received from the investigating agencies from Bihar and Karnataka. The power exercised by the respondent Bank is not an independent power. The Bank apart from implementing the directions made by the investigating agencies, also acts as the custodian of its customers’ Accounts. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that in view of three suspicious transactions, there is possibility of more complaints as regards suspicious transactions at a later point of time, such submission, in the considered view of this Court, advanced on behalf of the respondent Bank cannot be accepted. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent Bank regarding receipt of instruction in future cannot be a basis for keeping the entire amount in the concerned Bank Account of the petitioner on hold, over and above Rs. 22,672.83 for which complaints are received.
6. This Court is of the considered view that whenever a direction is received from any investigating agency specifying a particular amount, the Bank is required to place a lien to the extent specified by the investigating agency and is to permit the account holder to operate the concerned Bank Account in so far as the remaining balance in the Bank Account is concerned, unless the direction itself is for complete freezing of the Bank Account or there is a statutory mandate.
7. Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent that the debit freeze/withhold instructions made by the investigating authorities for the amount of Rs. 2,250.00, Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 15422.83 respectively, that is, Rs.
22,672.83 in total, are to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 22,672.83 at this stage. Meaning thereby, the respondent Bank authorities shall restrict freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Bank Account only to the extent of Rs. 22,672.83 and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Bank Account in respect of the balance amount lying credited thereof, subject to any further instruction made in a manner permissible under the law by any competent authority.
8. The writ petition is allowed to the extant indicated above. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant