The court established that freezing bank accounts without proper notice infringes fundamental rights and requires a balance between investigation interests and the rights of innocent account holders.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. F. Hoque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is a businessman by profession and running a business firm in the name of ‘D. S. Store’. For the said purpose, the petitioner is maintaining a Current Account bearing A/C No.8065279097 with the respondent Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) and he had approximate balance of Rs.3,09,619.38/- as on 04.11.2025. But on 04.07.2025 and 05.07.2025, a total amount of Rs.47,700/- deposited in his said Bank Account through 12 numbers of online transactions from unknown sources without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that while in the first week of September, 2025, the petitioner wanted to withdraw some money from his Bank Account, the petitioner came to know from the Bank that his said account was put on hold because of Cyber Police Complaint Nos. 30207250010500, 32407250022165, 31607250081920, 31907250131674, 31907250131674, 31307250047414, 32507250020560, 31207250007628, 31907250131674, 31607250080248 and 20807250047971. Thereafter, on 09.09.2025 the petitioner had submitted representation before the respondent No.3 requesting him to allow him to withdraw his own money from his Current Bank Account, but till date no action has been taken by the respondent No.3 and thereby causing undue financial hardships to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

3. Mr. F. Hoque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind related to the aforesaid bank account committed by the petitioner. 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 an amount of Rs.47,700/- only which appears to be a part of some fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid current bank account of the petitioner which the petitioner had no role to play.

4. 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 amounts and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts.

5. 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 Petition No. 321/2025 [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur]

6. 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 wou