Cyber Fraud Investigation Must Not Override Bona Fide Account Holder Rights: Gauhati HC Allows Conditional Operation Of NCCRP-Frozen Bank Account
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi directed the respondent bank to let the petitioner operate an account frozen on an NCCRP cyber crime complaint, with ₹1 lakh kept under lien for six months and an indemnity bond. The Court held that a blanket freeze cannot be indefinite and that cyber fraud investigation must be balanced with the rights of a bona fide account holder; if no material links the petitioner within six months, the lien must cease.
The petitioner was described as a micro enterprise engaged in selling meat at Maligaon, Guwahati, maintaining a current account with the respondent bank’s Maligaon Branch since October 2024, with a stated credit of more than ₹12 lakhs. From January 2025, debit transactions were stopped; on enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the account was frozen upon a complaint received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP). The petitioner submitted a representation and then filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, which was rejected by an email dated 28.03.2025.
The petitioner contended that the business was legal, that there was no fraudulent transaction related to the account, and that the freezing was done without notice or information, causing prejudice. Referring to the affidavit of the contesting respondents, the petitioner stated that ₹17,040 appeared to be part of a fraudulent transaction involving the account and sought a course of keeping the disputed amount in lien while allowing account operations; the petitioner also relied on decisions from other High Courts cited in the judgment.
The contesting respondents stated that the action was as per NCCRP directions and in accordance with law, that the magnitude of the transactions was not known at that stage, and that any relief should be subject to conditions in public interest. The affidavit-in-opposition dated 17.07.2025 was noted as indicating ₹17,040, which was clarified as ₹20,176. The judgment also notes a cited decision concerning “Section 106 of the BNSS” in relation to attachment/freezing of a bank account.
The Court observed, “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.”
It recorded, “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/-.”
The Court stated, “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.”
It observed, “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.”
The Court also observed, “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.”
“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.”
“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. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Mitra, Mr. S. Mitra, Mr. A. K. Boro, Mr. R. Rameez (Advocates)
For the Respondents: Dy. S.G.I., Ms. S. Dey, Mr. K. K. Nandi (Advocates); Ms. R. Devi (C.G.C.)
Case Title: M/S NEPALI CUTTING MEAT SHOP VERSUS BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND 4 OTHERS
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:16900
Case Number: WP(C)/2288/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
