Inamul Hoque vs Union Of India And Othrs

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010128572026

2026:GAU-AS:12474
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3352/2026
INAMUL HOQUE
S/O- ABDUL CHADEK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DEWAGURI, P.O.-
DEWAGURI, SUB DISTRICT-LAHARIGHAT, DISTRICT - MORIGAON,
ASSAM, pin- 782127
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH
BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, DELHI 110001
2:BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MORIGAON BRANCH
DISTRICT - MORIGAON
ASSAM-78210
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. J. Deka, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Sarmah, CGC
Mr. A. Hassan, Advocate


Date on which judgment is reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.08.2026

Page No.# 2/6

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : Yes

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : No


JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. K. J. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner. Mr. K. Sarmah, the learned CGC appears on behalf
of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Hassan, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2.
2. The Petitioner herein is a contract worker by profession and
undertakes contractual work at various locations across the State
of Assam. For the said purpose, the Petitioner maintains a Savings
Bank Account bearing No.505118210004021 with the Respondent
No.2, i.e. the Bank of India, Morigaon Branch.
3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the bank account of
the Petitioner has been frozen since March 2026. Upon making
enquiries with the officials of Respondent No. 2 Bank, the
Petitioner was verbally intimated that the account had been frozen
pursuant to an alleged communication received from the Cyber
Crime Authorities in connection with a complaint regarding a
transaction of Rs. 4,990/-. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner visited
the branch on multiple occasions; however, the Respondent No. 2

Page No.# 3/6
failed to provide the necessary details as sought for by the
Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner was not afforded any
opportunity of a hearing, and instead, his bank account was
arbitrarily frozen.
4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has
submitted several representations and visited the office of
Respondent No. 2 seeking a redressal of his grievances. However,
the Respondent Bank has not taken any action thereon till date.
Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the instant writ petition.
5. Mr. K. J. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a contractor by
profession and there is no fraudulent transaction of any kind
related to the aforesaid Bank Account. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted 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 said Bank Account of the Petitioner has a credit
balance of Rs.40,790/- and the Petitioner is not being able to use
the money lying in his Account which has caused extreme
difficulties in the day to day running of his business and is also
infringing his Fundamental Rights of Trade and Business as well as
violation of livelihood.

Page No.# 4/6
6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has
submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been
direction for keeping the disputed amounts in lien 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] &
iii) Crl. Writ Petition No. 321/2025 (Mr. Kartik Yogeshwar 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.
Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
9. In the case of , 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

Page No.# 5/6
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. A. Hassan, the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank
has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with
law. 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 public interest.
12. After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that
the impugned action for freezing of the Bank Account of the
Petitioner has been done in connection with some complaints
received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP).
13. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of
the respective submissions.
14. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be
met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings
Bank Account in question with certain conditions. This Court is also

Page No.# 6/6
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 bonafide and innocent
account holder.
15. This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner
should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Savings Bank Account,
but the amount of Rs.4,990/- be kept in lien.
16. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:

(a) The Savings Bank Account of the Petitioner bearing
No.505118210004021 with the Respondent No.2, i.e. the
Bank of India, Morigaon Branch is directed to be defreezed
forthwith.
(b) The Respondent No.2 shall keep a lien on the amount of
Rs.4,990/- till further directions are not issued by the
Authorities instructing the freeze.
(c) There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita
Comparing Assistant
Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.08.29 17:02:57 +05'30'