R.S.R Fashion Enterprise Vs Induslnd Bank and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010038522026

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1161/2026

¶6

R.S.R FASHION ENTERPRISE

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR ABDUR RASHID, AGED ABOUT 32, S/O- ABDUL MANNAN, VILL- BANGALPARA,, P.O.- TAPABARI, P.S. RAMDIA, KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN NO.- 781102

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

INDUSLND BANK AND 3 ORS

¶10

HEAD OFFICE,701-801, SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK167, GURU HARGOVINDJI MARG, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI-400093, MAHARASTRA,INDIA.

¶11

2:INDUSIND BANK REGIONAL OFFICE G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781032

¶12

3:BRANCH MANAGER INDUSIND BANK MALIGAON BRANCH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781025

¶13

4:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELH

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶17

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Ali, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Gogoi, Advocate

¶19

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA

¶20

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.07.2026

¶21

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

¶22

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : No

¶23

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶24

Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. A. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶25

The Petitioner herein is the proprietor of R.S.R. Fashion Enterprise which deals in the business of Cyber Cafe & Book Stall. For the said purpose, the Petitioner maintains a Current Account bearing No. 258638296403 with the Respondent No.3, i.e. the Induslnd Bank, Amingaon Branch.

¶26

The case of the Petitioner herein is that he has been operating the said Account with the Respondent Bank without any interruption since 2024. However, the Petitioner received a message through his registered mobile stating that the Petitioner’s

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

Bank Account at Amingaon Branch had been frozen on the basis of complaints received from the Cyber Police Station regarding alleged doubtful transactions amounting to Rs.62,384.84/-, purportedly originating from Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, Jayanagar Police Station & Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station of Karnataka, Dewpur West Police Station & Mankhurd Police Station of Maharastra and the said account of the Petitioner has been lien marked due to complaint of Cyber Police Station.

¶29

Upon enquiry with the Bank officials and more particularly the Respondent No.3 as to why the Petitioner is not being able to operate his Current Account, it was verbally intimated to the Petitioner that his Account had been frozen in connection with some complaints received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP). The Petitioner has been informed that his Bank Account has been frozen due to the following fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs.2,22,500/-. The details of complaints are as under:-

¶30

Name of the Authority	Acknowledgement	Freeze date	Disputed
instructingfreeze	No.	(when Bank	amount
		marked Freeze)
VEJALPUR GUJARAT	31106240095066	03-06-2024	100000
JAYANAGAR KARNATAKA	31605240039176	03-06-2024	49500
CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL	31606240041467	03-06-2024	25000

¶31

Page No.# 4/7

¶32

KARNATAKA
DHULE CYBER POLICE	31905240077220	03-06-2024	20000
STATION MAHARASHTRA
MANKHURD POLICE STATION MAHARASHTRA	31906240079007	03-06-2024	28000

¶33

The Petitioner, on 11.02.2026, submitted a representation before the Branch Manager, Induslnd Bank, Amingaon Branch, praying for lifting the lien of his Bank Account, save and except the disputed amount. 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.

¶34

Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is running a legal business 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.4,78,971/- and the Petitioner is not being able to use

¶35

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.

¶36

Page No.# 5/7

¶37

In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner 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.

¶38

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:

¶39

(i) WP No. 25631/2024 (Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Madras];

¶40

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] &

¶41

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]

¶42

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.

¶43

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 visa-vis the rights of an innocent and unwary account holder who is made to suffer unwarranted hardships due to blanket freezing of

¶44

Page No.# 6/7

¶45

bank account.

¶46

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.

¶47

Mr. A. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the direction of the Respondent Nos. 4. 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.

¶48

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 NCCRP.

¶49

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also given an anxious consideration of the respective submissions.

¶50

This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid Current

¶51

Page No.# 7/7

¶52

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 bonafide and innocent account holder.

¶53

This Court, accordingly observes that while the Petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid Current Account, but the amount of Rs.2,22,500/- be kept in lien.

¶54

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

¶55

(a) The Savings Account of the Petitioner bearing A/C No.258638296403 in Induslnd Bank, Amingaon Branch is directed to be defreezed forthwith.

¶56

(b) The Respondent No.1 shall keep a lien on the amount of Rs.2,22,500/- till further directions are not issued by the Authorities instructing the freeze as detailed out in the Table appended to Paragraph No.4 of the present judgment.

¶57

(c) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Pradip Kumar Kalita

¶59

Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.07.15 10:24:39 +05'30'

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Comparing Assistant

R.S.R Fashion Enterprise v. Induslnd Bank and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.R Fashion Enterprise v. Induslnd Bank and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdur Rahim and 46 Others Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Prasanta Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gita Poddar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Jaidur Rahman and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

The Management of Bata India Ltd. Vs Hridayananda Phukan and Anr.

Bashanti Jaiswal Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.