[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Bank Of India And 3 Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010011342026
2026:GAU-AS:3732
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/664/2026
ISTABUL HUSSAIN AND ANR
S/O SAMSUL HOQUE,VILL- MAJGAON, P.O- MAJGAON,P.S
PATACHARKUCHI,DISTRICT - BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781313
2: DULAL HUSSAIN
S/O OMAR ALI AHMED
R/O DHUPALPARAP.O. MAJGAON
P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-78131
VERSUS
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT
STATEBANK OF INDIA BHAVAN, MADAM CAROAD, MUMBAI - 400021.
2:ZONAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SURVEILLANCE AND INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
STATE BANK OF INDIA
LOCK HEAD OFFICE
WEST GANDHI MAIDAN
PATNA
PIN-800001
Page No.# 2/7
4:THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SIMLAGURI BRANCH
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Buragohain, SC, SBI
: Mr. K. gogoi, CGC
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 13.03.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No
· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
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
Page No.# 3/7
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
Page No.# 4/7
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) 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] &
Page No.# 5/7
(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]
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 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 the order of attachment /
freezing of a bank account.
11. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned Standing counsel for the
Respondent No.1 Bank has submitted that the action taken is
Page No.# 6/7
strictly in accordance with law. He submitted that at this stage, it is
not known about the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in
which, the aforesaid account of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners, some kind of condition be imposed in
public interest.
12. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the
respective submissions.
13. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be
met if the Petitioners are allowed to operate the aforesaid current
account in question 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 menace and the interest of a bona fide and innocent
account holder.
14. This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioners
should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Current Account, but
the amount of Rs.2,000/- be kept in lien which the Petitioners also
Page No.# 7/7
admit that they have knowledge how the said amount was credited
to their account.
15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:
(a) The SBI Current Account of the Petitioners bearing A/C
No.44633983652 in State Bank of India, Simlaguri Branch,
Barpeta is directed to be defreezed forthwith.
(b) The Respondent No.1 shall keep a lien on the amount of
Rs.2,000/- till further directions are not issued by the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(c) There shall be no order as to costs.
Bijoy Digitally signed
by Bijoy Saha JUDGE
Saha Date: 2026.03.14
15:09:02 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
