Atap Ali v. the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Apr 2026WP(C)/1714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Atap Ali v. The Reserve Bank of India and Ors.; WP(C)/1714/2026; Gauhati High Court; decision 02.04.2026; Justice Devashis Baruah; freezing and defreezing of SBI Savings Bank Account No.36625710255, Dakhin Ganakgari Branch, Barpeta; lien of Rs.6,500/- as cybercrime proceeds kept with Respondent No.3 subject to instructions of cyber police (Respondent Nos.4 & 5); writ petition disposed of; email dated 31.03.2026 confirming account operational.

What did the court decide?

No fresh direction to defreeze was warranted as the account had already been defrozen and made operational (per instructions based on an email dated 31.03.2026); the writ petition was disposed with the observation/direction that Rs.6,500/- remains on lien with Respondent No.3, subject to orders or instructions of Respondent Nos.4 & 5. ¶¶26

Atap Ali Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos.2 & 3, to defreeze the petitioner's Savings Bank Account bearing Account No.36625710255 maintained at the Dakhin Ganakgari Branch, Barpeta. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

Since, per the instructions provided to the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 based on an email dated 31.03.2026, the petitioner's Bank Account has already been defrozen and has become operational, nothing remains in the writ petition requiring issuance of a direction upon Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to defreeze the account.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The amount of Rs.6,500/- which is kept on lien shall continue to be kept by Respondent No.3 on lien, subject to such further or other orders or instructions as may be issued by Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/1714/2026 (order dated 02.04.2026, Hon'ble Justice Devashis Baruah): Petitioner Atap Ali sought defreezing of his Savings Bank Account No.36625710255 held at SBI, Dakhin Ganakgari Branch, Barpeta. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 (Mr. H. Buragohain) instructed that the account had already been defrozen and was operational vide email dated 31.03.2026, though a lien was retained on Rs.6,500/- identified as proceeds of a cybercrime. The Court disposed of the writ petition, observing that no direction to defreeze remained necessary, and directed that the Rs.6,500/- shall continue on lien with Respondent No.3 (Branch Manager, SBI), subject to further orders or instructions of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 (Cyber Cell CID CB, Mumbai; Cyber Cell CID CB, North Delhi).

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010056082026

2026:GAU-AS:4934

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1714/2026

¶6

ATAP ALI

¶7

S/O-ABDUL KHALEK, R/O- VILLAGE BHANDARA NO-2, NEAR MASJID BHANDARA NO-2, P.O-BHANDAA, P.S- MANIKPUR, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783390, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PANBAZAR STATION ROAD, GUWAHATI-01, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SBI CORPORATE CENTRE MADAM CAMA MARG MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-700041

¶11

3:THE BRANCH MANAGER SBI DAKHIN GANAKGARI BRANCH BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781317

¶12

4:THE SR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CELL CID CB MUMBAI

¶13

MAHARASHTRA-400001

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CYBER CELL CID CB NORTH DELHI-11000

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Hussain, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶20

02.04.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. A. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the State Bank of India.

¶22

The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the freezing of his Savings Bank Account bearing Account No.36625710255 maintained at the Dakhin Ganakgari Branch, Barpeta of the Respondent No.2.

¶23

Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that as per his instructions, the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner bearing Account No.36625710255 is operational. However, the amount of Rs.6,500/- which is a proceed of a cybercrime, a lien is kept on

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

the said amount.

¶26

Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-

¶27

(i) As in the instructions so provided to Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 on the basis of an email dated 31.03.2026 that the petitioner’s Bank Account has already been defrozen and has become operational, nothing remains in the instant writ petition for issuance of a direction upon the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to defreeze the petitioner’s Bank Account.

¶28

(ii) This Court further observes and directs that the amount of Rs.6,500/- which is kept on lien shall be kept by the Respondent No.3 on lien and would be subject to such further or other orders or instructions issued by the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Atap Ali v. the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atap Ali v. the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Assam and Ors. Vs Priyanka Deka

The State of Assam and 4 Ors. Vs Rituraj Doley

The State of Assam Vs Dr Hitesh Majumdar

Laipuli Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samity Limited and 15 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Minu Begum Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Biraj Sutradhar Vs on the Death of Kulajit Das, His Legal Heirs Smt. Dipannita Das and 2 Ors. Rep.