Sohel Molla v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

What happened

The petitioner runs a proprietorship, Rohan Retail, and conducts its business through an account with Axis Bank, Dalhousie Branch, Kolkata. On or around 8 May 2025 the Bank received a notice from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Central Branch, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tamil Nadu under section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with a case registered as CSR No. 259/2024. It directed the Bank to lien-mark a particular amount against one transaction and to debit-freeze the account, and the Bank froze the whole account. The petitioner says he knows nothing about the case, never received any communication from the police, is ready to cooperate, and is under financial stress. His letters to the Bank and the police got no response, and by a letter of 4 September 2025 the Bank said it could not unfreeze without a formal revocation from the competent authorities. His counsel argued that only one transaction was marked for a lien and the money in the account was much more, and fairly said that the lien on that transaction could continue. The Bank said it was bound to follow the police's directions. The Reserve Bank and the State were represented, and the police were not.

Questions before the court

• Was it justified to debit-freeze the whole account when the notice concerned a single transaction of ₹2,253?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court noted that, although the notice appeared to concern only one transaction, the account had been frozen in its entirety pursuant to it, and there appeared to be no rationale for the direction (paragraph 14). The police officer's failure to respond to the petitioner's letters and to appear in the writ petition did not inspire confidence in its actions, and having directed a lien on a specific amount for a particular transaction, the Court could not understand or appreciate the necessity of a direction to debit-freeze the entire account, which appeared to be without justification (paragraph 14). The disputed value of the transaction was only ₹2,253, so there was no justifiable reason to freeze the whole account (paragraph 15). The allegations in the petition were deemed not to have been admitted because no affidavit-in-opposition had been called for (paragraph 17).

Controlling point

A direction to debit-freeze an entire bank account when the police notice identifies only a single disputed transaction of ₹2,253 is unjustified, and a lien on the disputed sum is sufficient to protect the investigation.

Order and next steps

Axis Bank was directed to de-freeze the petitioner's account forthwith but to continue to mark a lien of ₹2,253, so that the petitioner is not allowed to withdraw that sum, subject to further directions of the Inspector of Police. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the petitioner and the Bank were directed to send a copy of the order immediately to the police by email and by Speed Post.

Practical implications

An account holder whose whole account is frozen on a police notice that identifies one transaction can ask the bank to confine the restriction to a lien on the disputed amount, and can approach the High Court if the investigating authority does not respond.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court proceeded on the petitioner's allegations, which were deemed not admitted, since no affidavit-in-opposition had been called for; it did not decide whether the transaction was genuine, and the lien and investigation continue.