[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sidhartha Mech vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
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.
Page No.# 2/6
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
BEFORE
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.
Page No.# 3/6
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:
Page No.# 4/6
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 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.
9. 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 theorder of attachment / freezing of a
bank account.
10. Shri Parvez, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.2- Bank
has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and
Page No.# 5/6
as per the direction of the respondent nos. 3 to 6. He 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. He has also submitted that in the event this Court grants any
relief to the petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in the interest of
public.
11. After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the
impugnedaction for freezing the bank account of the petitioner has been
done on a complaint received by the respondent no. 2 from the
respondent nos. 3 to 6.
12. While the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in
contending that there may not be a blanket restriction on the operation of
the account and the disputed amount may be kept in lien, this Court also
finds force in the contention advanced by Shri Parvez, learned counsel that
at this stage, it may be difficult to quantify theamount involved and also
the aspect as to whether there is involvement of the petitioner in the cyber
crime.
13. After giving an anxious thought to the rival contentions, this Court is
of the opinion that the equities would be balanced and interest of justice
would be served if a direction is given to allow the petitioner to operate
the aforesaid current bank account 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
Page No.# 6/6
menace and the interest of a bona fide and innocent account holder.
14. This Court, accordingly directs that while the petitioner would be
allowed tooperate the aforesaid account, an amount of Rs. 93,000/-
(Rupees Ninety Three Thousand) only be kept in lien till a period of 6
months. If in this period of 6 months, there is no material to link the
petitioner either with the cyber crime or with any fraudulent transactions,
the aforesaid lien on the amount of Rs. 93,000/- (Rupees Ninety Three
Thousand) would cease and the petitioner would be allowed to operate the
aforesaid account without any restriction. The petitioner is also required to
give a Bond to indemnify the respondent-Bank for any loss which maybe
suffered because of any illegal or fraudulent activity of the petitioner
involving the aforesaid bank account.
15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
