[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Bhabana Das Bhowmik vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 107/2026
Smt. Bhabana Das Bhowmik, wife of Sri Dulal Chandra
Bhowmik, resident of Chandipara, Amarpur, Gomati Tripura, P.O.
Amarpur,-799101, P.S. Birganj, District- Gomati, Tripura.
..... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of West Bengal, represented by the Secretary,
Home and Hill Affairs Department, having its office at Nabanna,
325 Sarat Chatterjee Road, Shibpur, Mandirtala, Howrah, West
Bengal-711102;
2. The Secretary, Home and Hill Affairs Department, having
its office at Nabanna, 325 Sarat Chatterjee Road, Shibpur,
Mandirtala, Howrah, West Bengal-711102;
3. The Director General of Police, West Bengal, Bhabani
Bhawan, 31, Belvedre Road, Kolkata-700027;
4. Special Superintendent of Police, Cyber & Economic
Offences Wing (CID), West Bengal, Bhabani Bhawan, 31,
Velvedre Road, Kolkata-700027;
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police(I), ESD, Kolkata,
West Bengal, 105 Hem Chandra Naskar Road, Kolkata-10, West
Bengal;
6. The Branch Manager, IDBI Bank, Rangamati, Amarpur,
Gomati, Tripura, Pin-799101;
7. The Chief Branch Manager, IDBI Bank, IDBI Tower, WTC
Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400005;
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 19.02.2026
Whether fit for reporting : No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
2. By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for the following reliefs:
"i) Admit the Petition;
ii) Call for the records from the custody of the respondents;
iii) Issue a Writ of Memorandum, directing the Respondents to
defreeze the Petitioner's Current Account bearing No. 208310200000949
with IDBI Bank, Rangutia, Amarpur, Gomati Tripura, IFSC Code-
IBKL0002083;
iv) Grant interim relief permitting operation of the bank account
during pendency of the present petition;
v) After hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute."
3. The facts of the case, lies in a narrow compass, is that
the after obtaining certificate from YES Bank and IndusInd Bank
had been running a Customer Service Point (CSP) at Amarpur
whereby she provides CSP service such as cash deposit and cash
withdrawal through UPI and M-ATM facilities to the customers in
the locality, and for that purpose she had a current Account with
the respondent No.6. On 11.04.2024 through an e-mail from
respondent no. 6 came to learn that her aforesaid Current
Account had been frizzed by the respondent no.6-Bank which
according to the petitioner was without any prior intimation or
without obtaining any clarification from her side. The petitioner
also received a Cyber Crime Report regarding a complaint lodged
on the basis of fraud calls and UPI transactions. It is the further
case of the petitioner that the freezing of the account was linked
to a transaction dated 02.07.2023 wherein a sum of Rs.35,000/-
was deposited in her account through UPI ID of one Maloy Joy
Reang, which the petitioner had disbursed on the very said day
to the customer. It is further case of the petitioner that no FIR
has been registered against her nor she has been noticed till date
to establish her involvement with any criminal offence. The
petitioner submitted her application to the respondent no.6, but
no decision has been communicated to her till date. Having no
option, the petitioner served legal notice upon the respondent
nos. 5 and 6 with a prayer to defreeze her account but in futile,
and the same crippled her livelihood. Since the action of the
respondents is arbitrary and violative of principle of natural
justice, the petitioner has approached this Court for redress.
4. The contention of Ms. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no link with
any criminal offence and her account has been freezed without
any lawful authority. It has been further argued that despite
lapse of long period, no FIR has been registered against the
petitioner which clearly establish that her account has been
arbitrarily freezed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
no knowledge or she does not know the complainant in any
manner. Learned counsel further submits that the amount which
was linked to a transaction was already disbursed to the said
person. Learned counsel further submits that for a considerable
period no proceeding has been initiated against her to establish
her involvement in any criminal matter. It was further argued by
the learned counsel that prior to freezing the account, the
petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to place her
grievance or she was afforded with any opportunity of being
heard on the contrary, the respondent no. 5 and 6 arbitrarily
freezed her account causing deprivation of her legitimate right.
Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner made several
communications with the respondent no. 5 and 6, but despite
receipt of the communications, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 did
not take any endeavour to defreeze the account of the petitioner,
and finding no other alternative, the petitioner sent a legal notice
to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 10.02.2025 with certain
reliefs, but till date the same was not addressed to. In fine,
learned counsel has urged for a direction upon the respondent
nos. 5 and 6 to defreeze the account of the petitioner.
5. This court has perused the record and also has gone
through the correspondences made therein. It is evident that a
complaint was lodged by one Saidab Alam regarding UPI related
frauds on 03.07.2023 with Kolkata police, and the respondent
No.6, on 11.04.2024, by an e-mail intimated the petitioner that
on receipt of a complaint from Cyber police, the account of the
petitioner has been freezed and the respondent no.6-Bank
expressed their inability to defreeze the account of the petitioner
until and unless No-Objection certificate is obtained from Cyber
Cell authorities. Subsequently, on 07.11.2024, the petitioner by
her communication requested the respondents to unlock her
current account on the basis of the pleas taken by her in her
application. Despite receipt of the communication dated
07.11.2024, the respondents did not acted upon it. Having no
other option, the petitioner on 10.02.2025 served a legal notice
upon respondent no. 5 with a copy forwarded to respondent
No.6, wherein she has vividly described the entire episode and
thereby prayed for defreezing her Current Account. Despite
receipt of the legal notice, the respondents did not respond.
6. From the record it is seen that a complaint with regard o
UPI fraud was lodged on 03.07.2023 consequent to which rationally
or irrationally the account of the petitioner was freezed by
respondent no.6 since 11.04.2024. After lodging of the complaint
involving the petitioner with cyber crime, according to the
investigating agency, there was some suspicious transaction
through UPI account of the petitioner which led to freezing of the
account of the petitioner. Even on suspicion, the bank authority is
authorized to freeze the account immediately without affording any
opportunity of being explained. Section 106 of the BNSS, 2023
empowers the investigative agencies the authority to seize 'any
property'--including bank accounts--that they believe may be
connected to any illegal or suspicious activity.
7. The petitioner in her petition has averred that she is an
aged lady and due to freezing of her account, she is facing day to
day consequences in her business and livelihood. The petitioner also
has averred that she has approached the respondent Nos. 5 and 6
by her representation dated 07.11.2024 and legal notice dated
10.02.2025. Since the matter is under investigation, this court is
not inclined to enter into merits of the case. However, on good
conscious, this court believes that the respondent No.1 to 5 would
conclude the investigation at the earliest.
8. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case,
this court directs the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, to act upon the
requests made by the petitioner through her representation dated
07.11.2024 and legal notice dated 10.02.2025, and then,
communicate their decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the copy
of this Order.
In the light of above direction, the instant writ petition stands
disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2026.02.20 12:37:00
-05'00'
