Smti Bhargabi Bhattacharyya Vs the State of Assam and 16 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/14

¶2

GAHC010071712026

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:7973

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2010/2026

¶6

SMTI BHARGABI BHATTACHARYYA

¶7

WIFE OF DEBAJIT BHUYAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 4, BISHNUJYOTI PATH, JAYANAGAR, SIX MILE, P.O.- KHANAPARA, P.S- DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781022.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 16 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI781006, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CID (CYBER CELL) CID HEADQUARTERS DY. S.P. DR. B. K. KAKATI ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER NORTH-EAST REGION

¶14

Page No.# 2/14

¶15

HEAD OFFICE OPPOSITE ASSAM SACHIVALAYA G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM

¶16

5:THE BRANCH MANAGER IIBM BRANCH STATE BANK OF INDIA KHANAPARA PIN- 781022 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶17

6:THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶18

NEW GUWAHATI BRANCH STATE BANK OF INDIA G. N. B. ROAD NEW GUWAHATI PIN- 781021 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶19

7:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶20

CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION CENTRAL CRIME STATION BUILDING DABA GARDENS VISAKHAPATNAM- 530020 ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶21

8:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶22

ALWAR GATE POLICE STATION NEAR SEWA MANDIR AJMER- 305001 RAJASTHAN.

¶23

9:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MIRA BHAYANDAR-VASAI VIRAR MBVV POLICE COMMISSIONERATE SECTOR 5 MIRA ROAD EAST THANE-401107 MAHARASTRA.

¶24

Page No.# 3/14

¶25

10:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶26

CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE CAMPUS GANDHIJI ROAD ERODE638001 TAMIL NADU.

¶27

11:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶28

MARGAO TOWN POLICE STATION COMBA MARGAO- 403601 GOA

¶29

12:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶30

CYBER POLICE STATION SOUTH EAST DISTRICT 2ND FLOOR P.S.- BADARPUR NEW DELHI110044.

¶31

13:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶32

CYBER CRIMES HEADQUARTERS CCH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CAMPUS VEPERY CHENNAI- 600007 TAMIL NADU. 14:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER AHMEDABAD CITY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION BUNGALOW NO. 15 DAFNALA CROSS ROAD SHAHIBAUG AHMEDABAD- 380004 GUJARAT 15:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER DISTRICT CYBER POLICE STATION SP OFFICE CAMPUS SURVEY NO. 488 ASS ROAD JALNA- 431213 MAHARASHTRA

¶33

Page No.# 4/14

¶34

16:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE CAMPUS NALLIPALAYAM NAMAKKAL637003 TAMIL NADU. 17:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION NEAR RAJ BHAWAN RAJBANSI NAGAR BORING ROAD PATNA- 800001 BIHAR

¶35

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D J KAPIL, MR. A BHATTACHARJEE

¶36

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S Ali (R-4,5,6),MR K DAS (R-4,5,6)

¶37

:::BEFORE:::

¶38

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶39

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.06.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes

¶40

Judgment & Order (Oral)

¶41

Heard Mr. D. J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel, for State respondents and Mr. K. Das,

¶42

Page No.# 5/14

¶43

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State Bank of India.

¶44

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent Bank authorities to de-freeze her salary account bearing Account No. 44754198675 maintained at the New Guwahati Branch; to de-freeze her savings bank account bearing Account No. 20109338903, or in the alternative, to restrict the freezing only to the extent of any specific amount, if identified as disputed; to furnish complete particulars of complaints/FIRs and the investigating agencies forming the basis of freezing of her accounts; to facilitate coordination with investigating agencies for expeditious resolution of the issue and to permit withdrawal of maturity proceeds of her fixed deposit bearing Account No. 00000044312253065 upon maturity. The petitioner has also assailed the blanket freezing of her Customer Information File (CIF) and accounts as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶45

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is presently serving as a Graduate Teacher (English) at PM Shri Anchalik High School, Fulguri, Kamrup (Rural), Assam. The petitioner had opened and maintained two bank accounts with the State Bank of India, namely, Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903 at the IIBM Branch, Khanapara, Guwahati, opened in the year 2013, and Savings Bank Account No. 44754198675 at the New Guwahati Branch, opened on 19.12.2025. Both the aforesaid accounts are linked to the same Customer Information File (CIF) No. 86125573164. The account maintained at the New Guwahati Branch was opened by the petitioner for the specific purpose of receiving her salary pursuant to her appointment as a Graduate Teacher vide appointment order dated 17.12.2025. The petitioner also maintains a fixed

¶46

Page No.# 6/14

¶47

deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) with the respondent Bank, which is due to mature on 12.10.2026.

¶48

4. After completion of her education and during the intervening period of unemployment prior to her appointment as a Graduate Teacher, the petitioner was occasionally engaged in online games available on Facebook and other social media platforms. Over a period of time, the petitioner came across an online gaming platform known as “Tiranga” and started participating in a game known as “Aviator” available on the said platform. According to the petitioner, being unaware of the larger implications of participation in such online gaming activities, she continued to participate in the said game from time to time. In the course of such participation, the petitioner utilized her Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903 maintained with the State Bank of India, IIBM Branch, Khanapara, Guwahati, for making payments towards recharge credits and for receiving withdrawal amounts from the gaming platform. The petitioner claims that during the period of her engagement with the said platform, she cumulatively spent approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) and received winnings amounting to approximately Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) through the said account. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon joining service pursuant to her appointment as a Graduate Teacher, she completely discontinued her participation in the aforesaid online game.

¶49

5. The petitioner, however, found herself unable to operate either of the aforesaid bank accounts with effect from 17.01.2026, as both the accounts were shown to be blocked. Upon approaching the concerned branches of the respondent Bank, the petitioner was informed that her Customer Information File (CIF) had been frozen on account of the alleged use of her Savings Bank

¶50

Page No.# 7/14

¶51

Account No. 20109338903 in certain illegal online activities, including trading and investment scams. The petitioner was further informed that such action had been taken pursuant to directions received from various cybercrime investigating agencies operating in different States across the country, including Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Goa, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, among others. As a consequence of the freezing of the petitioner's CIF, both her savings account as well as her salary account became inoperative.

¶52

6. According to the petitioner, although the allegations pertained to transactions allegedly routed through her Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903, the respondent Bank proceeded to freeze not only the said account but also her salary account bearing Account No. 44754198675 maintained at the New Guwahati Branch. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the salary account had never been utilized for any online gaming activities or for any of the transactions under investigation and was opened exclusively for the purpose of receiving her salary after her appointment as a Graduate Teacher. Notwithstanding the absence of any alleged gaming-related transactions in the said account, the respondent Bank rendered the same inoperative on the ground that both the accounts were linked to the same Customer Information File (CIF).

¶53

7. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent authorities seeking de-freezing of her bank accounts as she had already discontinued her participation in the online gaming platform and the salary account bearing Account No. 44754198675 had never been used for any gaming-related transactions. However, the respondent Bank informed the petitioner that the accounts could be de-frozen only upon receipt of No Objection Certificates

¶54

Page No.# 8/14

¶55

(NOCs) from all the concerned investigating agencies certifying her noninvolvement in the alleged fraudulent transactions.

¶56

8. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has submitted various requests to the respondent authorities for permitting operation of her bank accounts by retaining a lien over the amount, if any, alleged to be proceeds of cybercrime. According to the petitioner, the continued freezing of the accounts has caused severe hardship, particularly as one of the accounts is her salary account, access to which has remained blocked for more than five months.

¶57

9. Mr. D. J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the continued freezing of the petitioner's CIF and bank accounts has caused severe financial hardship, particularly as her salary account, which is maintained exclusively for receiving her salary, has also been rendered inoperative. It is submitted that the said salary account has never been used for any gamingrelated or disputed transactions. Learned counsel submits that the accounts were frozen without issuance of any notice to the petitioner and without furnishing copies of any FIR or complaint. According to the learned counsel, the prolonged freezing of the accounts has deprived the petitioner of access to her lawful earnings and has placed her and her family under acute financial distress, affecting their means of livelihood.

¶58

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no objectionable, suspicious or questionable transactions either made from or credited to the petitioner's salary account. It is submitted that the said account is maintained solely for the purpose of receiving her lawful salary and meeting routine personal expenses. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent Bank may be directed to de-freeze the petitioner's accounts by retaining a lien only

¶59

Page No.# 9/14

¶60

to the extent of the disputed transaction amount, if any, and permit the petitioner to operate the remaining funds.

¶61

11. Mr. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2288/2025, M/s. Nepali Cutting Meat Shop vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Others, to contend that a blanket restriction on the operation of a bank account would not be justified and that a balance is required to be struck between the interest of investigation and the rights of a bona fide account holder. It is submitted that in appropriate cases, the disputed amount may be retained under lien while permitting operation of the bank account.

¶62

12. Mr. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, submits that both the bank accounts of the petitioner, being linked to the same Customer Information File (CIF), have been put on hold/frozen on account of cybercrime complaints. It is submitted that the petitioner's salary account bearing Account No. 44754198675 was opened on 19.12.2025 after her original Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903 had already been put on hold from the backend pursuant to complaints received from various investigating authorities dealing with cybercrime cases. Learned counsel submits that there are multiple cybercrime complaints lodged at different police stations across the country regarding fraudulent transactions routed through the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903. He further submits that the petitioner herself has admitted to having participated in online gaming activities. It is contended that upon receipt of such complaints, the petitioner's CIF was stopped by the Cyber Cell, Patna and, since both the accounts are linked to the same CIF, operation of both the accounts has been restricted. Learned counsel

¶63

Page No.# 10/14

¶64

submits that the respondent Bank has already furnished to the petitioner the details of the police stations from where complaints have been received and that it is for the petitioner to approach the concerned investigating agencies for resolution of the complaints. It is further submitted that unless No Objection Certificates are received from the concerned investigating authorities, the respondent Bank would not be in a position to de-freeze the petitioner's accounts.

¶65

13. Having submitted as above, Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, submits that the frozen status of the petitioner's bank accounts and Customer Information File (CIF) can be removed only upon receipt of appropriate orders from this Court and that, in such an event, the respondent Bank would have no objection to permitting operation of the accounts, subject to retention of a lien over such amount as may be found to constitute the proceeds of cybercrime.

¶66

14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶67

15. It appears from the record that the freezing of the petitioner’s accounts has been initiated on account of cybercrime complaints alleging fraudulent transactions through the petitioner’s savings account bearing No. 20109338903. It is not in dispute that both the savings account as well as the salary account bearing No. 44754198675 have been frozen only on the ground that they are linked to a common Customer Information File (CIF) No. 86125573164, which has been placed under restriction pursuant to such complaints received from different jurisdictions.

¶68

Page No.# 11/14

¶69

16. It is also an admitted position that the salary account bearing No. 44754198675 was opened on 19.12.2025 exclusively for the purpose of receiving salary after the petitioner’s appointment as a Graduate Teacher. Nothing is placed on record at this stage to show that the said salary account has any direct nexus with the alleged cybercrime transactions. The allegations, as of now, primarily relate to the older savings account bearing No. 20109338903. It is also seen from the record that the quantified disputed amount in respect of the said savings account is Rs. 2,40,994.15/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Four and Fifteen Paise only), whereas no specific disputed amount has been shown or attributed to the salary account.

¶70

17. The respondent Bank has frozen both accounts with effect from 17.01.2026 till date on the basis of instructions received from cybercrime authorities. However, there is nothing on record to show the specific stage of investigation or any material indicating direct involvement of the salary account. It is also not shown that any prior notice was issued to the petitioner before freezing the accounts or that she was supplied with the relevant complaints/FIRs forming the basis of such action.

¶71

18. At the same time, the Court is conscious that cybercrime complaints are serious in nature and require proper investigation and the investigating agencies must be permitted to proceed in accordance with law. However, while doing so, a balance is required to be maintained so that the action taken does not become disproportionate, particularly where it results in complete deprivation of salary and lawful earnings of an employee without any specific allegation against that account.

¶72

Page No.# 12/14

¶73

19. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Nepali Cutting Meat Shop (supra), has held that in cases of freezing of bank accounts on account of cyber complaints, a balance has to be struck between the interest of investigation and the rights of a bona fideaccount holder, and that a blanket restriction on operation of accounts is not justified where the disputed amount can be secured by way of lien. It has further been observed that permitting operation of the account while retaining a reasonable lien over the disputed amount would serve the ends of justice and prevent undue hardship to the account holder while protecting the interest of investigation. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶74

“9. After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing the bank account of the petitioner has been done on a complaint received by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the NCCRP. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 17.07.2025 would indicate that the amount involved is Rs.17040/-. Shri Nandi, learned counsel has, however, clarified that the amount would be Rs.20,176/-.

¶75

While the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in contending that there cannot be a blanket restriction on the operation of the account and the disputed amount may be kept in lien, this Court also finds force in the contention advanced by Shri Nandi, learned counsel that at this stage, it may be difficult to quantify the amount involved and also the aspect as to whether there is involvement of the petitioner in the cyber crime.

¶76

After giving an anxious thought to the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the equities would be balanced and interest of justice would be served if a direction is given to allow the petitioner to operate the aforesaid current bank account 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 bona fide and innocent account holder.

¶77

This Court, accordingly directs that while the petitioner would be allowed to operate the aforesaid account, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only be kept in lien till a period of 6 months. If in this period of 6 months, there is no material to link the petitioner either with the cyber crime or with any fraudulent transactions, the aforesaid lien on the amount of Rs. 1 lakh would cease and the petitioner would be allowed to operate the aforesaid account without any restriction.

¶78

Page No.# 13/14

¶79

The petitioner is also required to give a Bond to indemnify the respondent-Bank for any loss which may be suffered because of any illegal or fraudulent activity of the petitioner involving the aforesaid bank account.”

¶80

20. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that continuation of freezing of the salary account bearing No. 44754198675, merely on the basis of CIF linkage, in absence of any independent allegation or material connecting the said account with the alleged cybercrime transactions, would be disproportionate and unjustified, particularly as the said account has been opened exclusively for receipt of salary pursuant to the petitioner’s appointment as a Graduate Teacher and bears no demonstrable nexus with the disputed transactions. At the same time, the interest of investigation can be adequately protected by securing the quantified disputed amount of Rs. 2,40,994.15/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Four and Fifteen Paise only), stated to be attributable to Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903, by permitting the respondent Bank to retain the said amount under lien in the said account, thereby ensuring that the investigation is not prejudiced while at the same time preventing undue hardship to the petitioner.

¶81

21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to limited relief by striking a balance between the interests of the investigation and the petitioner’s right to access her lawful earnings, while ensuring that the quantified disputed amount is secured by way of lien in the savings account.

¶82

22. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent Bank shall forthwith permit the petitioner to operate her salary account bearing No. 44754198675, maintained with the State Bank of India, New Guwahati Branch, without any

¶83

Page No.# 14/14

¶84

restriction. In respect of Savings Bank Account No. 20109338903 maintained with the State Bank of India, IIBM Branch, Khanapara, Guwahati, the Bank shall be at liberty to retain an amount of Rs. 2,40,994.15/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Four and Fifteen Paise only) under lien, subject to further verification and outcome of the ongoing investigation. It is further provided that in the event no material is ultimately found to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement or the disputed liability is not established, the lien so imposed shall stand automatically released and the petitioner shall be entitled to operate her accounts without restriction. The petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the investigating agencies as and when required.

¶85

23. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and the investigation shall proceed independently in accordance with law.

¶86

24. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above.

¶87

JUDGE

¶88

Comparing Assistant

Smti Bhargabi Bhattacharyya v. the State of Assam and 16 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Bhargabi Bhattacharyya v. the State of Assam and 16 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

Iifl Finance Limited Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nandini Dutta Vs State of Haryana and 6 Ors.

Sri Uttam Kr Gohain Boruah Vs the State of Assam

Toklima Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Johuruddin Ahmed Vs Mrs. L. Sweety Changsan, IAS and 2 Ors.