Najirul Islam Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

Najirul Islam Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated: debit freeze/withhold instructions executed only by way of lien over Rs. 22,000/-; freezing restricted to Rs. 22,000/-; petitioner permitted to operate the account for the balance amount lying credited, subject to any other or further instruction by any competent authority in accordance with law; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent IndusInd Bank could lawfully keep the petitioner's entire bank account under debit freeze when the investigating authority's instruction specified lien/debit freeze only to the extent of Rs. 22,000/-.

Court's answer

The action of the respondent Bank in keeping the petitioner's bank account frozen is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of the directions received from the investigating authority, Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore City, Tamil Nadu.

Ratio / Principle

The power exercised by the respondent Bank under such an instruction is not an independent power; the Bank implements the investigating authority's directions and also acts as custodian of the bank accounts.

Key takeaways

The apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent Bank regarding possible receipt of further instructions in future cannot be a basis for keeping the entire amount in the account on hold over and above Rs. 22,000/-.ratio¶¶31
Whenever a direction is received from the investigating authority specifying a particular amount, the Bank is required to place a lien to the extent specified and to permit the account holder to operate the account for the remaining balance, unless the direction itself is for complete freezing of the account or there is a statutory mandate.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury, J.), WP(C)/1383/2026, decided 15-07-2026: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by an account holder whose account (no. 187002308069, IndusInd Bank, Nagaon Branch) was kept entirely under 'No debit freeze' following a debit freeze/lien-marking instruction received by the Bank on 25.06.2025 via the NCRP/CFCFRMS portal from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore City (CSR no. 4420/25/NCRP/32906250035975/2025), specifying three suspicious transactions totalling Rs. 22,000/-. HELD: (i) a bank's power under such an instruction is not independent; it implements the investigating authority's directions and acts as custodian of accounts; (ii) freezing the account beyond the scope of the investigating authority's directions is unsustainable, and apprehension of future complaints cannot justify holding the entire balance over and above Rs. 22,000/-; (iii) where a direction specifies a particular amount, the Bank must lien only that amount and permit operation of the remaining balance, unless the direction is for complete freezing or a statutory mandate exists. Freeze restricted to Rs. 22,000/-; petitioner allowed to operate the balance subject to further lawful instructions; petition allowed to that extent; no costs.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010037092026

2026:GAU-AS:9658

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1383/2026

NAJIRUL ISLAM

S/O SHAFI UDDIN, R/O MOIRABARI GASTOLA, MAZAR SHARIF, MOIRABARI TOWN, P.O.- MOIRABARI, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM- 782126

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, DELHI-110001

2:INDUSIND BANK NAGAON BRANCH OFFICE THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH OFFICE- NAGAON ADDRESS- SARKAR BHAVAN A.T. ROAD 37 NATIONAL HIGHWAY HAIBARGAON NAGAON-782002

3:INDUSIND BANK GARIAHAT BRANCH OFFICE THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH OFFICE- GARIAHAT ADDRESS- 21A EKDALIA ROAD KOLKATA DIST- KOLKATA WEST BENGAL-700019

4:COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COIMBATORE CITY

Page No.# 2/5

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE HUZUR ROAD UPPILIPALAYAM COIMBATORE-641018 TAMIL NAD

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM, MR C GOGOI

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B SINGHA(R2),A GOGOI(R2),A K GOGOI(R2),MR. G PEGU(C.G.C.)R1

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 15-07-2026

Heard Mr. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an action on the part of the respondent Indusind Bank authorities in keeping the petitioner’s Bank Account no. 187002308069 in debit freeze condition.

It is stated that the petitioner has been maintaining the said Bank Account at Nagaon Branch of the respondent Indusind Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposit of Rs. 2,30,360.31 in the said Bank Account on 28.01.2026. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 27.06.2025, the respondent no. 3 had informed the petitioner by a communication of even date to the effect that the said Bank Account of the petitioner had been placed under a ‘No debit freeze’ on the basis of a communication received from Cyber Cell Police Station, Coimbatore City.

Page No.# 3/5

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the Statement of Accounts pertaining to the said Bank Account, a lien had been marked over an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Yet, the petitioner has been prevented from operating the Bank Account in respect of the amount lying in the said Bank Account over and above Rs. 20,000/-.

Notice was issued to the respondent authorities including the respondent nos. 2 & 3 on 11.03.2026.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has referred to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the said respondents. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the respondent Bank authorities had received a debit freeze instruction on 25.06.2025 through Cyber Crime Reporting Portal vide Acknowledgment no. 32906250035975 [NCRP/CFCFRMS], being the Citizen Financial Cyber Frauds Reporting and Management System [CFCFRMS] operated through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal [NCRP] of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is further mentioned that the debit freeze instruction was emanated from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore City, Tamil Nadu in connection with CSR no. 4420/25/NCRP/32906250035975/2025 dated 25.06.2025, directing immediate lien marking and debit freeze on the Bank Account of the petitioner and it is upon receipt of such instruction through the CFCFRMS/NCRP platform, which is monitored by the respondent Bank on a real time basis for regulatory and law enforcement compliance, the Bank Account has been kept in debit freeze condition.

Page No.# 4/5

From the affidavit-in-opposition, it has emerged that the respondent Bank authorities had kept the Bank Account of the petitioner in debit freeze condition in view of three suspicious transactions amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 1,000/and Rs. 1,000/- respectively i.e. Rs. 22,000/-, in total.

In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the instruction for lien is received only to an extent of Rs. 22,000/-, the action on the part of the respondent Indusind Bank authorities to keep the entire Bank Account of the petitioner in debit freeze condition is unauthorised.

Having heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondent Bank in keeping the Bank Account of the petitioner freezed is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of directions received from the investigating authority, Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore City, Tamil Nadu. The power exercised by the respondent Bank is not an independent power. The Bank apart from implementing the directions made by the investigating authority, also acts as the custodian of the Bank Accounts. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that in view of three suspicious transactions, there is possibility of more complaints as regards suspicious transactions at a later point of time, such submission, in the considered view of this Court, advanced on behalf of the respondent Bank is not acceptable at his stage. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent Bank regarding receipt of instruction in future cannot be a basis for keeping the entire amount in the concerned Bank Account of the petitioner on hold, over and above Rs. 22,000/-.

This Court is of the considered view that whenever a direction is received

Page No.# 5/5

from the investigating authority specifying a particular amount, the Bank is required to place a lien to the extent specified by the investigating authority and is to permit the account holder to operate the concerned Bank Account in so far as the remaining balance in the Bank Account is concerned, unless the direction itself is for complete freezing of the Bank Account or there is a statutory mandate.

Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the debit freeze/withhold instructions made by the investigating authority for the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively i.e. Rs. 22,000/- in total, are to be executed by the respondent Bank authorities by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 22,000/- at this stage. Meaning thereby, the respondent Bank authority shall restrict freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Bank Account only to the extent of Rs. 22,000/- and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Bank Account in respect of the balance amount lying credited thereof, subject to any other or further instruction made by any competent authority in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed to the extant indicated above. No cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant