5 min readNew DelhiJun 29, 2026 12:51 PM IST
First published on: Jun 29, 2026 at 12:51 PM IST
Balancing the need to investigate cyber fraud cases while protecting innocent account holders, the Gauhati High Court has allowed partial operation of an advocate’s ICICI Bank account that had been frozen over a cyber crime complaint, provided that he follows imposed conditions, including keeping Rs 25,000 in lien or unavailable for withdrawal.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that it was not yet determined at this stage whether the petitioner had any involvement in the alleged cybercrime, and it required further investigation.
“After giving an anxious thought to the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the equities would be balanced and the interest of justice would be served if a direction is given to allow the petitioner to operate the aforesaid savings bank account 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,” the June 26 order said.
The petitioner is an advocate by profession, and maintains a savings bank account with the respondent-ICICI Bank in its Ulubari branch, Assam, for professional transactions. However, since May 14, 2026, transactions were stopped, and on an enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the said account was frozen upon a complaint received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP).
On May 15, 2026, the petitioner submitted a representation detailing the last three deposits and related transactions. As of the filing of the case, the savings account had a balance of Rs 1.17 lakh.
Justice Sanjay Kumar observed the advocate had argued that he should not be fully restricted from using the bank account, and only the disputed amount should be on hold.
Advocate vs ICICI Bank
Advocates M Gogoi and S Banikya, representing the petitioner, submitted that he is an advocate by profession and there is no fraudulent transaction of any nature related to the aforesaid bank account. He added that the action has been taken without any notice or information and has caused immense prejudice to him.
The counsel submitted that from the affidavit filed by the ICICI Bank, it transpires that an amount of Rs 12,000 appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid savings account of the petitioner. It was argued that in similar cases, directions have been issued for the amount be kept on hold, while allowing the account holders to continue operating their bank accounts.
The counsel for ICICI Bank, on the other hand, said that the action was taken strictly in accordance with the law and the directions of the NCCRP. He added that the magnitude of the fraudulent transactions in which the petitioner may be involved, and the amount quantified at this stage, may not be the final amount. He requested that if any relief is granted to the petitioner, some kind of condition be imposed in the interest of the public.
Complaints from police, cybercrime centre
- The high court observed that the advocate’s bank account was frozen based on complaints received from the Indian Cyber Crime Co-ordination Centre, the commissioner of police, and the joint commissioner of police, West Zone, through the NCCRP.
- According to the bank’s affidavit, the disputed amount involved Rs 12,000.
- The court observed that the advocate had argued that he should not be fully restricted from using the account, and only the disputed amount should be on hold.
- However, the judge underlined that it was yet to be determined whether the advocate was involved in the cybercrime.
Partial use of account allowed
In view of the material on record, the high court opined that justice would be served if the advocate is allowed to operate the savings account, provided he follows the conditions it imposed. A balance must be maintained between investigating cyber fraud cases, which are increasing and harmful, and protecting genuine account holders who may not be involved in any wrongdoing, it observed.
The court held that the advocate should be allowed to operate the account, but Rs 25,000 will remain on lien for six months, and if no material is established proving his linkage with cybercrime, the restriction on the amount will be lifted, and the account can be operated freely. The court also directed him to furnish an indemnity bond in favour of the bank for any loss which may arise from any illegal or fraudulent use of his account.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that his bank account was frozen without any notice or information, which has caused immense prejudice to him. (AI-generated image) 
Justice Sanjay Kumar observed the advocate had argued that he should not be fully restricted from using the bank account, and only the disputed amount should be on hold.
Share
