Partly allowed¶38

Prajalita Bora Koch v. the Branch Manager Hdfc Bank and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Jul 2026WP(C)/2112/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/2112/2026; decided 13-07-2026 by Manish Choudhury, J.; Article 226 writ petition; debit freeze of HDFC Bank current account no. 50200026001871; cyber crime complaints (Andhra Pradesh NTR Commissionerate; Gujarat Cyber Centre of Excellence); lien of Rs. 330/-; bank's power not independent; bank as custodian of accounts; freeze restricted to investigating authority's direction; balance operable; partly allowed; no cost.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to the extent that the debit freeze over Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871 is restricted to a lien of Rs. 330/- as instructed by the Investigating Authority; the petitioner is permitted to operate the balance amount lying credited, subject to any further direction by a competent authority; no costs. ¶38

Prajalita Bora Koch Vs the Branch Manager Hdfc Bank… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the debit freeze imposed by the respondent HDFC Bank Limited on the petitioner's Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871, extending beyond the scope of the direction received from the Investigating Authority (State of Gujarat) limited to a lien of Rs. 330/-, is sustainable.

¶34

Court's answer

The action of the respondent Bank in keeping the petitioner's Bank Account freezed is not sustainable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of the direction received from the Investigating Authority from the State of Gujarat.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The power exercised by the respondent Bank is not an independent power; Banks, apart from implementing the directions made by the Investigating Authorities, also act as the custodian of the Bank Accounts.

¶34

Key takeaways

The respondent HDFC Bank Limited authorities shall restrict the freezing order operative over the petitioner's Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871 only to the extent of Rs. 330/- by keeping a lien over that amount, executing the Investigating Authority's debit freeze/withhold instruction for that sum, and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Bank Account in respect of the balance amount lying credited, subject to any further direction made by any competent authority permissible under the law.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an account holder assailing the action of HDFC Bank Limited in debit-freezing her Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871 (K.B. Road Branch, Jorhat), in which she claimed a deposit of more than Rs. 18,00,000/-, owing to an allegedly suspicious transaction/credit of Rs. 310/-; the freeze operated w.e.f. 20.01.2026 following complaints of suspicious transactions, one from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Andhra Pradesh NTR Commissionerate (since settled) and two from the State of Gujarat, the latter authority having instructed by communication dated 11.06.2026 a lien only over Rs. 330/-. The Court held that the Bank's action in keeping the account freezed was not sustainable to the extent it exceeded the scope of the direction received from the Investigating Authority, the power exercised by the Bank not being an independent power, Banks acting also as custodians of Bank Accounts apart from implementing Investigating Authorities' directions. The freezing order was restricted to the Rs. 330/- lien and the petitioner allowed to operate the balance, subject to any further direction by a competent authority permissible under law; writ petition allowed to that extent, no cost. (Manish Choudhury, J.)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010076872026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2112/2026

¶6

PRAJALITA BORA KOCH

¶7

R/O CLUB ROAD, CHANDAN NAGAR, BY LANE 16, JORHAT EAST, JORHAT, JORHAT, ASSAM, 785001.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC BANK AND 7 ORS. K.B. ROAD BRANCH, JORHAT, ASSAM, 785001, (IFSC- HDFC0000753)

¶10

2:HDFC BANK ZONAL OFFICE THROUGH ZONAL HEAD HDFC BANK LTD. UJJAL ARCADE GROUND FLOOR M.C. ROAD CHENIKUTHI BUS STOP GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781003.

¶11

3:THE STATE OF GUJARAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT HOME DEPARTMENT BLOCK NO. 2 3RD FLOOR NEW SACHIVALAYA GANDHINAGAR GUJARAT PIN-382010.

¶12

4:STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶13

POLICE STATION CYBER CRIME KHEDA MVW4 PLUS VRM NADIAD GAJARAT 387001.

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

5:THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT HOME DEPARTMENT III FLOOR A BLOCK TELANGANA SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD-500022.

¶16

6:STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶17

CYBER CRIME HYDERABAD CITY 5-10-196 LB STADIUM RD BAND COLONY ADARSH NAGAR HYDERABAD TELANGANA 500029.

¶18

7:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MHA NORTH BLOCK GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001

¶19

8:INDIAN CYBER CRIME

¶20

COORDINATION CENTRE 14C 5TH FLOOR NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI-1100

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K AZAD,

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. P SARMAH(R1,2),R BASUMATARY(R1,2),MR R CHAKRAVORTY(R1,2)

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 13-07-2026

¶26

Heard Ms. B.C. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

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 HDFC Bank Limited authorities in freezing the petitioner’s Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871, which the petitioner has been maintaining at K.B. Road Branch, Jorhat, Assam of the respondent HDFC Bank Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had a deposit of more than Rs. 18,00,000/- in the said Current Bank Account and due to an allegedly suspicious transaction/credit of Rs. 310/-, the entire Bank Account has been kept debit freezed by the respondent authorities.

¶29

Notice was issued to the respondent authorities including the respondent nos. 1 & 2 on 29.04.2026.

¶30

Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that it was in view of receipt of a number of complaints regarding suspicious transactions in the Current Bank Account of the petitioner, the Current Bank Account was put in debit freeze condition w.e.f. 20.01.2026. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that three number of complaints were received in relation to suspicious transactions in the Current Bank Account of the petitioner. One of the complaints was received from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Andhra Pradesh NTR Commissionerate. He has submitted that the issue raised in the complaint received from Cyber Crime Police Station, Andhra Pradesh NTR Commissionerate has since been settled. In so far as the other two complaints received from the State of Gujarat are concerned, a Communication dated 11.06.2026 has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Centre of Excellence, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat wherein an instruction

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

to keep a lien over a sum of Rs. 330/- has been communicated.

¶33

In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, it is averred that on 11.06.2026, the Bank through its Centralized LEA Department had received an e-mail along with a notice from the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Centre of Excellence, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat with an instruction to the Bank to mark a lien for an amount of Rs. 330/- and to release the remaining amount in the petitioner’s Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871.

¶34

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 direction received from the Investigating Authority from the State of Gujarat. The power exercised by the respondent Bank is not an independent power. The Banks apart from implementing the directions made by the Investigating Authorities, also act as the custodian of the Bank Accounts.

¶35

Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the debit freeze/withhold instruction made by the Investigating Authority for the amount of Rs. 330/- is to be executed by the respondent HDFC Bank Limited authorities, by keeping a lien over the said amount of Rs. 330/-. Meaning thereby, the respondent HDFC Bank Limited authorities shall restrict freezing order operative over the petitioner’s Current Bank Account no. 50200026001871 only to the extent of Rs. 330/- and the petitioner is to be allowed to operate the Bank Account in respect of the balance

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

amount lying credited thereof, subject to any further direction made by any competent authority permissible under the law.

¶38

With the observations made and direction made above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Prajalita Bora Koch v. the Branch Manager Hdfc Bank and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajalita Bora Koch v. the Branch Manager Hdfc Bank and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayana Bordoloi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bimal Baishya and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sri Krishna Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and Other

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Sabyasachi Beb and Anr.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt Kanduri Bala Ray

Sabir Ahmed Choudhury Vs the Union of India and Ors.