Shibashish Dhar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

#8. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties perused the materials on record.

#9. This Court finds that the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner on receipt of the complaint of Cyber Crime, Pune that the transaction made on April 30, 2024 with regard to an amount of Rs. 1,09,236/- there is a disputed amount of Rs. 81,000/- and the same was informed to the Bank on May 30, 2024 and the Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner.

#10. Considering the above, this Court finds that there might be any investigation carried out by the Cyber Crime authority but the Cyber Crime authority failed to appear before this Court in spite of service of notice even they have not communicated either to the Bank or to this Court that the Cyber Crime authority have received any order with regard to the freezing of the account of the petitioner form any Court or failed to offer any reasons for such freezing of the account.

#11. Considering the above, this Court finds that the disputed amount is only Rs. 81,000/- out of Rs. 1,09,236/-. 5

#12. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to defreeze the account of the petitioner and to unblock the PAN card of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account by keeping the disputed amount of Rs. 81,000/- in lien.

#13. WPA 26039 of 2025 is disposed of.

#14. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)