Blanket bank-account freezing is impermissible; only the disputed transaction amount may remain under lien.

The petitioner, a contract worker, maintained Savings Bank Account No. 505118210004021 with Bank of India, Morigaon Branch.

The account had allegedly been frozen since March 2026 pursuant to communication from cyber-crime authorities concerning a disputed transaction of ₹4,990 received through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP).

The petitioner claimed that the bank neither supplied the relevant details nor acted upon his representations, and that the blanket freeze prevented him from accessing the account’s credit balance of ₹40,790, affecting his business and livelihood.

He therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court seeking relief against the freezing of the account.

The Court applied the principle that a blanket freezing of an entire bank account, under the guise of investigation, should not be disproportionate where the disputed amount can be identified and secured; the restraint should be suitably limited to protect both the investigation and the rights of an innocent account holder.

It relied upon Mohammed Saifullah v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors., where the Madras High Court held that freezing an entire account without quantifying the amount or specifying the period may violate fundamental rights.

Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., concerning the need to balance the complainant’s interests against the hardship caused to an account holder by blanket freezing.

Mr. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India & Ors., which considered attachment/freezing of bank accounts in the context of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court further applied the equitable principle that the interests of cyber-fraud investigations must be balanced against the rights of a bona fide account holder.

The Court accepted that the account had been frozen pursuant to cyber-crime complaints and recognised the seriousness of cyber fraud.

However, it found that justice required a balance between preserving the disputed amount for the investigation and avoiding unnecessary hardship to the petitioner by disabling the entire account.

Since the alleged disputed transaction was ₹4,990, the Court considered it sufficient to secure that amount by imposing a lien, while permitting the petitioner to operate the remainder of the account.

This approach preserved the investigative authorities’ claim over the disputed funds without endorsing a disproportionate blanket freeze.

The bank was directed to retain a lien over ₹4,990 until further directions were issued by the authorities that had instructed the freeze.

No order as to costs was made.