Fundamental rights protect against arbitrary freezing of bank accounts without notice; courts must balance the rights of account holders with the necessities of investigations.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and H. Buragohain, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India. I have also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The Petitioners herein are the businessmen by profession and the proprietors of a partnership business under the name and style of “Manash Enterprise” situated at Majgaon Bazar, Barpeta having its PAN No.ACEFM5119L. For the said purpose, the Petitioners are maintaining a SBI Current Account bearing No. 44633983652 with the Respondent State Bank of India.

3. The grievance of the Petitioners in the instant writ petition is that the Bank authorities have kept the Bank Account of the Petitioners on hold/blocked. It is the case of the Petitioners that, upon enquiry with the Bank, they came to know that their account had been blocked by the Head Office of the State Bank of India due to a disputed transaction of Rs. 2,000/-. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Bank Account has been blocked without issuing any notice or intimation either by the Bank Authorities or by any Investigating Agency.

4. The Petitioners made various verbal requests for unfreezing their account but the Respondent Bank did not take any action till date. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. Mr. M. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners are running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related to the aforesaid Bank Account. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the action has been taken without giving any prior notice to the Petitioners, which has caused immense prejudice to the Petitioners. The learned counsel also submitted that the transaction of Rs. 2,000/-, which appears to have been treated as part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid savings account of the Petitioners, is not attributable to the Petitioners.

6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioners 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.

7. 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 Pettition No. 321/2025 [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 ofMr. 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. H. Burag