Dr. Arunima Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC010096522024

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:9853

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2605/2024

¶6

DR. ARUNIMA BARUAH W/O- SRI NIRANJAN BORA, R/O- H.NO. 17, BYE-LANE NO. 1, NEAR HEM BARUAH ROAD, MATHURA NAGAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, CM BLOCK, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006.

¶9

2:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶10

GUWAHATI MAIN BRANCH

¶11

PAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶12

PIN- 781001.

¶13

3:THE STATE OF GUJARAT REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

¶14

HOME DEPARTMENT

¶15

Page No.# 2/11

¶16

2ND BLOCK 1ST FLOOR SACHIVALAYA GANDHINAGAR GUJARAT. PIN- 395001.

¶17

4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION NEAR IGP OFFICE ATHWALINES SURAT GUJARAT. PIN- 395001. 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CYBER POLICE STATION

¶18

PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781001

¶19

6:THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT LOK BHAWAN C BLOCK LUCKNOW UTTAR PRASDESH PIN-226001 7:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER INDRAPURAMPOLICE STATION GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH PIN-201014 8:THE STATE OF KARNATKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA II FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU KARNATAKA PIN-560001 9:THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CEN POLICE STATION

¶20

Page No.# 3/11

¶21

NORTH-EAST DIVISION 64 KHB COLONY GANDINAGARA

¶22

YELAHANKA BENGALURU KARNATAKA PIN-56006

¶23

B E F O R E

¶24

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶25

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Dey

¶26

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. A Pervez for respondent No.2

¶27

State Bank of India

¶28

Mr. SR Baruah, Govt. Advocate

¶29

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

¶30

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 17.07.2026

¶31

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes

¶32

Operative Part of the Judgment

¶33

Whether the Full Judgment has been : No Pronounced

¶34

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶35

Heard Mr. S Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶36

Page No.# 4/11

¶37

petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Pervez, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 i.e. the State Bank of India; Mr. SR Baruah, the learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶38

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner maintains a Savings Bank Account bearing Account No.10823877299 with the respondent No.2 i.e. the State Bank of India, Guwahati Main Branch at Panbazar, Guwahati.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner who has been operating the aforesaid account bearing Account No.10823877299 was unable to operate her Bank Account. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that her aforesaid account was freezed on instructions from the Cyber Crime Police Station at Surat, Gujarat i.e. the respondent No.4.

¶40

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband was engaged in stock market since a year. Suddenly he was included in a Whatsapp group called ‘Momentum Stock’. He was lured into opening an Institutional Account to operate in the stock market. Accordingly, the petitioner’s husband had invested over Rs.1.2 crores in that Institutional Account. The petitioner’s husband funds were gradually shown to be valued at around Rs.3 crores. It was then that the petitioner’s husband sought to withdraw the money, but he was instead removed from the said Whatsapp group and his Institutional

¶41

Page No.# 5/11

¶42

Account was also suspended. Consequently, the petitioner’s husband only received Rs.29100/- whereas lost about 1.2 crores. In the same manner, the petitioner’s husband invested 17 lakhs through another whatsapp group called ‘Stock Frontline’ and the payments in this regard were made by him into one ‘Kana Capital’. The petitioner’s husband lost another 8.05 lakhs through three whatsapp groups, wherein the petitioner invested 9 lakhs and received only 95000/- in return. The said amount of Rs.95000/- is the disputed amount.

¶43

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband transferred a total amount of Rs.4,60,000/- to the bank account of the petitioner in different installments. These transfers were made in the background of his stock market tradings. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner had transferred the aforesaid amounts in the said bank account of the petitioner for purely safety reasons. However, in the meantime, the petitioner came to know that an FIR was lodged at Cyber Crime Police Station at Surat Gujarat in connection with the fraudulent stock trading activities of which the petitioner’s husband is also a victim. The said FIR is registered as LA28/2024 dated 15.01.2024 and in connection with the investigation of the said case, the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner had been freezed. It is further submitted that the freezing of the account of the petitioner has been made specifically in respect to the transfer of an amount of Rs.95000/- made by her husband, which is in dispute.

¶44

Page No.# 6/11

¶45

Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband lodged a complaint with the National Cyber Crime Portal and the Complaint bears Acknowledgment No.20401240000419.

¶46

The petitioner’s grievance is that she is facing extreme hardship for not being able to operate her bank account. The petitioner has also sent email to the Officer-in-Charge, Cyber Crime Police Station at Surat Gujarat i.e. the respondent No.4 however, to no avail. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶47

Mr. S Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted the said amount of Rs.95000/- was credited to the petitioner’s account in the background of her husband’s stock market tradings and the said transaction is purely bona fide in nature and the petitioner had no role with the stock market tradings 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 her. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transaction in question involves an amount of Rs.95000/- which appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid saving account of the petitioner.

¶48

Page No.# 7/11

¶49

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 amount and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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] &

¶53

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].

¶54

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.

¶55

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 vis-a-vis

¶56

Page No.# 8/11

¶57

the rights of an innocent and unwary account holder who is made to suffer unwarranted hardships due to blanket freezing of bank account.

¶58

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.

¶59

This Court duly takes note of the records of the present writ petition wherein it is seen that a communication dated 22.07.2024 was sent by the Respondent No.4 addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court. The said communication is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘A’. The relevant portion of the said communication is reproduced hereinunder:

¶60

“………..It is submitted to Hon'ble Court that, as per the complaint received victim has been defrauded with amount of Rs.51,73,839/- on pretext of investment fraud and upon investigating it has been found on dated 04/01/2024 that Amount of Rs.3,00,000/has been transfer to A/C no.257878320368 of IndusInd Bank from Victim’s Account. Further, on same day from IndusInd Bank account said amount is splited/transfer to (1) Transaction of Rs.63,447.4/- to Account No. 009751100000090 of Yes Bank, (2) Transaction of Rs.2,00,000/- to Account No. 50100678590953 of HDFC Bank, (3) Transaction of Rs.2,00,000/- to Account No. 414601507006 of ICICI Bank, (4) Transaction of Rs.1,00,000/- to Account No. 21273211047216 of UCO Bank and (5) Transaction of Rs.95,000/- of 50100219412215 of HDFC Bank (i.e. petitioner’s husband account). Further, on dated 12/01/2024 from HDFC Bank Account No. 50100219412215 (i.e. petitioner’s husband account) Rs.95,000/- is transfer to Account No. 10823877299 of State Bank of India (i.e. petitioners account). So, these accounts are marked debit freeze for fraudulent transactions. Bank statement entry highlighted in Annexure-2.

¶61

Page No.# 9/11

¶62

It is submitted to Hon’ble Court that, with ongoing investigation suspected account holder (i.e. Petitioner) has never contacted to Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat city for non-involvement in fraudulent transaction nor asked to lift debit freeze or raised any other business concern regarding said account and Petitioner has raised concern directly before Honorable High Court of Gauhati.

¶63

It is submitted to Hon’ble Court that, if suspected account holder bearing Account No. 10823877299 of State Bank of India (i.e. petitioners account) have contacted Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat City and could have given the explanation or justification regarding disputed transactions then Cyber Crime Police Station may have helped petitioner to resolve the issue of account debit Freeze.

¶64

It is submitted to Hon’ble Court that, As per money trail disputed amount of Rs.95,000/- was credited in the petitioner Account No. 10823877299 of State Bank of India therefore account holder is suspected in this case hence, account marked debit Freeze.”

¶65

Mr. A Pervez, the learned counsel for the SBI further has placed before this Court an email dated 16.07.2026 issued to him by the Assistant General Manager, SBI wherein it has been mentioned that the freeze of the petitioner’s Account was made on the basis of the Surat Cyber Crime Police Station in connection with FIR No.LA28/2024 dated 15.01.2024. The said email is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘B’.

¶66

Mr. A Pervez, learned counsel for the SBI i.e. the respondent No.2 herein has submitted that the action taken is strictly in accordance with law and as per the direction of the respondent authorities. The learned counsel has submitted that at this stage, it is not known about the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in which, the

¶67

Page No.# 10/11

¶68

aforesaid account of the petitioner may be involved and the amount quantified at this stage may not be the final amount. Mr. A Pervez, the learned counsel further submitted that in the event this Court grants any relief to the petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in public interest.

¶69

After consideration of the rival submissions, it transpires that the impugned action for freezing of the bank account of the petitioner has been done on a complaint received by the Cyber Crime Police Station at Surat, Gujarat i.e. the respondent No.4.

¶70

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

¶71

This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is allowed to operate the aforesaid savings 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 bona fide and innocent account holder.

¶72

This Court, accordingly observes that while the petitioner should be allowed to operate the aforesaid savings account bearing Account No.10823877299 with the respondent No.2 i.e. the State Bank of India, Guwahati Main Branch at Panbazar, Guwahati, but the amount

¶73

Page No.# 11/11

¶74

of Rs.95000/- be kept in lien till further instructions are received from the Respondent No.4.

¶75

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

¶76

(a). The Savings Account of the petitioner bearing Account No.10823877299 with the respondent No.2 i.e. the State Bank of India, Guwahati Main Branch at Panbazar, Guwahati is directed to be defreezed forthwith.

¶77

(b). The State Bank of India, Guwahati Main Branch Panbazar, Guwahati is directed to keep a lien on the amount of Rs.95000/- till further directions are not issued by the Respondent No.4.

¶78

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

¶79

JUDGE

¶80

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Arunima Baruah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Arunima Baruah v. the State of Assam 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

M/S Sri Prasan Trading Company Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Edingson Khongnohbeh Vs Barduar Tea and Timber Co. Ltd.

Sri Rajib Hazarika Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (Ongc) 4 Ors.

M/S North East Petrochemicals Vs the Union of India and Othrs

Uttam Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Kamaleswar Namasudra Vs the State of Assam and Ors.