Sohel Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Others (Calcutta High Court)
₹2,253 in Dispute, Entire Business Account Frozen: Calcutta HC Orders Immediate Relief
The Dispute: A Small Amount, a Complete Freeze
The Calcutta High Court directed Axis Bank to immediately de-freeze a businessman’s bank account, while retaining a lien of ₹2,253, being the disputed amount connected with a cybercrime investigation.
The Court found no justification for freezing the entire account when the police notice concerned only one identified transaction and a specific disputed sum.
The relief preserved the disputed amount for the investigation while restoring the petitioner’s ability to operate the account. The judgment addresses the practical hardship caused when a limited transaction dispute results in a complete restriction on business banking.
Business Operations Brought to a Halt
The petitioner, Sohel Molla, carried on a small proprietorship business under the name “Rohan Retail”. His primary business financial operations were conducted through an account maintained with Axis Bank’s Dalhousie Branch, Kolkata.
The bank received a notice dated 8 May 2025 from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu.
The notice was issued under section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It directed the bank to mark a lien against an identified transaction and also debit-freeze the account.
The transaction dated 22 August 2024 was for ₹39,899, but the disputed amount specified against it was only ₹2,253. Acting on the police direction, the bank marked the lien and froze the account.
Petitioner Sought Information and Offered Cooperation
The petitioner stated that he had no knowledge of the cybercrime case and had received no communication from the investigating authority concerning it.
He expressed readiness to cooperate with the authorities and furnish any information or documents required. His grievance was that the complete freeze had placed him under considerable financial stress by preventing him from operating his business account.
He wrote several letters to the bank and the investigating officer, seeking details of the notice and requesting restoration of account operations. According to the material recorded in the judgment, the investigating officer did not respond.
The bank, by its letter dated 4 September 2025, informed him that the account could not be unfrozen without a formal revocation or unfreezing order from the competent authority that had directed the freeze.
Retain the Lien, Restore Account Operations
The petitioner’s principal submission was that the investigating officer should not have directed a freeze of the entire account when the notice identified only a particular transaction.
He pointed out that the funds lying in the account were substantially more than the amount covered by the lien.
Significantly, he accepted that the lien could continue. His request was therefore to restore access to the balance while leaving the disputed amount protected.
Axis Bank submitted that it was complying with the investigating officer’s directions and was obliged to do so. Counsel appearing for the bank, the State and the Reserve Bank of India otherwise left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
Investigating Officer Failed to Appear
The Court noted that the investigating officer had not been represented on any hearing date, despite service of the petition and communication about its pendency through Speed Post and email.
The Court consequently proceeded to pass orders in the officer’s absence.
It observed that the failure to respond to the petitioner’s communications, coupled with the failure to appear before the Court, did not inspire confidence in the action taken.
More fundamentally, the Court found no apparent rationale for freezing the entire account after directing that a specific amount relating to an identified transaction be secured by a lien.
Immediate De-Freezing Directed
The Court held that, since the disputed value was only ₹2,253, there was no justifiable reason to freeze the entire bank account.
Axis Bank was directed to immediately de-freeze the account, while continuing the lien over ₹2,253. The petitioner was not to be permitted to withdraw that sum, subject to further directions from the investigating officer.
The petitioner and the bank were also directed to immediately send the judgment to the investigating officer by email and Speed Post.
The writ petition was disposed of without costs. The Court clarified that, since no affidavit-in-opposition had been called for, the respondents were not deemed to have admitted the allegations in the petition.
Author’s Comments
The judgment provides a practical solution to a recurring problem in cybercrime investigations: an account holder’s entire banking activity becomes paralysed even though the notice identifies a relatively small disputed amount.
Here, the Court protected the investigation by retaining the lien and addressed the business hardship by restoring account operations. Securing the identified amount did not require an unexplained freeze of every rupee in the account.
The ruling should nevertheless be understood within its facts. It does not declare every complete account freeze unlawful, establish the petitioner’s innocence or terminate the investigation. The absence of justification for the wider restriction was central to the relief.
For affected account holders, the distinction between the transaction amount, the disputed amount and the total funds frozen can be crucial. A request to retain the identified lien while releasing the remaining balance may offer a concrete and proportionate basis for relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is represented. The respondent nos.3 and 4 are represented. The State of West Bengal is also represented. The respondent no.2 is not represented.
2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court today is taken on record.
3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for, inter alia, a writ commanding the concerned respondent Authorities to forthwith act in accordance with law to take steps against the concerned respondent Authority and to de-freeze the petitioner’s Bank Account No.923020029857838 with Axis Bank Limited, Dalhousie Branch, Kolkata – 700001.
4. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a small-time businessman operating as a proprietorship named “ROHAN RETAIL” with his primary business financial operations being conducted through the aforesaid Account No.923020029857838. On or around May 8, 2025, the petitioner was shocked to learn that the aforesaid Bank had received a notice dated May 8, 2025, issued by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). In terms of the aforesaid notice, the Bank was directed to “lien mark” a certain amount against a certain transaction and debit-freeze the aforesaid Bank Account of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of a case in CCD-1, Cyber Crime Wing, CSR No.259/2024. The amount which was directed to be lien marked in the petitioner’s Bank Account is as follows:-
| Sl. No | Date | Account Number | Transaction ID | Transaction Amount | Disputed Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22.08.2024 | 92302009857838 | YESB41743921819 | 39,899/- | 2,253/- |
5. It is the petitioner’s case that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the aforesaid case and he has never received any form of communication from the respondent no.2 in connection with the foregoing. He further states that he has always been, and still is, ready and willing to cooperate with the concerned Authorities in respect of the aforesaid case as well as provide any information/documents which may be sought from him by such Authorities. The petitioner further submits that he is in great financial stress in view of his inability to operate his aforesaid Bank Account for no fault or wrongdoing on his part.
6. Pursuant to receipt of the aforesaid notice, the said Bank has lien marked the aforesaid amount and has also frozen the aforesaid Bank Account of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had addressed several letters to the Bank and to the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu, requesting them to provide further details in respect of the subject-matter of the aforesaid notice date May 8, 2025, as well as to de-freeze his aforesaid Bank Account. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not received any response or reply or any communication from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu till date.
7. Insofar as the Bank is concerned, by a letter dated September 4, 2025, the Bank has informed the petitioner that the aforesaid Bank Account of the petitioner cannot be unfrozen until and unless it receives a formal revocation/unfreezing order from the Competent Authorities who had initially directed the freeze.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu, as well as the said Bank, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking various reliefs.
9. The primary argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, ought not to have directed Axis Bank to debit-freeze the entire Bank Account of the petitioner inasmuch as only one particular transaction was directed to be marked as a “lien” in respect of his aforesaid Bank Account. In view of the notice dated May 8, 2025, the petitioner’s entire Bank Account has been frozen. The money lying in his Bank Account is much more than the amount in respect of the solitary transaction which has been marked as a “lien”. Accordingly, he prays that the Bank Account of the petitioner should be unfrozen. However, he fairly submitted that the aforesaid transaction, which has been marked as a “lien” can continue and remain to be marked as a “lien”.
10. Learned Advocates representing the Axis Bank Limited as well as the State of West Bengal and the Reserve Bank of India have left the matter to the discretion of this Court.
11. Learned Advocate for Axis Bank Limited has further submitted that the Bank is only abiding by the directions given by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu and it is under an obligation to do so.
12. Learned Advocate representing the State of West Bengal has further submitted that the respondent no.5, being the Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata, has nothing to do with the subject-matter of the writ petition.
13. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates representing the parties and I have also considered the materials on record. Unfortunately, the respondent no.2, being the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu, has not been represented on any of the dates when this matter had been called on for hearing. It has been served with copies of the writ petition and it has also been intimated about the pendency of this writ petition before this Court by the petitioner through Speed Post as well as by email. Despite receipt of such communications, it has not been represented before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is compelled to pass necessary orders in its absence.
14. It is evident that although the notice dated May 8, 2025 appears to be concerned with only one transaction in the petitioner’s aforesaid Bank Account, the petitioner’s Bank Account has been frozen in entirety pursuant to the directions given by such notice. There does not appear to be any rationale behind the respondent nos.2’s direction in this regard. Its failure to respond to the petitioner’s communications as well as its failure to be represented in this writ petition before this Court also does not inspire any confidence in its actions. Having issued a direction to “Lien Mark” a specific amount in respect of a particular transaction, I am unable to understand or appreciate the necessity behind the direction to debit-freeze the entire Bank Account. Such direction appears to be without any justification whatsoever.
15. In my view, since the disputed value of the transaction complained of in respect of the petitioner’s Bank Account, is only Rs.2,253/-, there is no justifiable reason as to why the entire Bank Account of the petitioner should be frozen.
16. In such circumstances, the respondent no.3, being Axis Bank Limited, is directed to immediately de-freeze the petitioner’s said Bank Account No.923020029857838 with Axis Bank, Dalhousie Branch, Kolkata – 700001. However, the Bank must continue to mark as a “lien” the aforesaid transaction amounting to Rs.2,253/-. In other words, the petitioner should not be allowed by the Bank to take out the sum of Rs.2,253/-, subject to further directions of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu.
17. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
18. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
19. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. The petitioner as well as the Bank are directed to immediately provide a copy of this judgment and order to the respondent no.2 by email as well as by Speed Post.
20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
