GAHC010030822026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/934/2026 SIDHARTHA MECH SON OF RABIN MECH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MERAPANI, P.O.-

MERAPANI, P.S.-MERAPANL, DIST.-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785705.

VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

2:THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK MERAPANI BRANCH P.S.- MERAPANI DIST.-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785705.

3:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE JAMMALAMADUG UPS POLICE STATION DISTRICT -YSR ANDHRA PRADESH PIN- 516434.

4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION DISTRICT -BANGALORE KARNATAKA PIN- 562114.

5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE NARSINGI POLICE STATION DISTRICT-CYBERABAD TELANGANA PIN- 500075.

6:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BANJARA HILLS POLICE STATION DISTRICT-HYDERABAD CITY TELANGANA PIN- 500034 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri D. Borah, Advocate Advocates for the respondents : Shri A. Parvez, Advocate Shri S.K. Medhi, CGC Ms. M. Das, Advocate Date of hearing and judgment : 20.02.2026.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Shri D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri. A. Parvez, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank. Ms. M. Das, learned counsel is present on behalf of Shri S.K. Medhi, learned C.G.C.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved and also, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a businessman and in connection with the said business, the petitioner is maintaining a current bank account, being Account No. 2040010167468 with the respondent- Punjab National Bank in its Merapani Branch, Golaghat District which is in operation since October, 2024. It is averred that there is a credit of more than Rs. 12 lakhs. However, since 2024, debit transactions were stopped and on an enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the said account was frozen upon a complaint received from the respondent nos. 3 to 6. The petitioner intended to submit a representation to the Respondent no.2, for defreezing his account and the said respondent refused to accept his representation.

4. Assailing the said action, Shri Borah, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any nature related to the aforesaid bank account. He has submitted that the action has been taken without any notice and information and has caused immense prejudice to the petitioner. He has submitted that an amount of Rs.93,000/- (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand) appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid current account of the petitioner.

5. In this regard, he 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.

6. 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].

7. 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.

8. 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