Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
ABDUL KHADER K. S – Appellant
Versus
THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, KASARAGOD BRANCH – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2807 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Biji A Manikoth
For the Respondents: Shri C. Dinesh, CGC; Shri Madhu Radhakrishnan; Shri Nelson Joseph; Shri M. D. Joseph; Shri Deepak Ashok Kumar; Shri Jeswin Jacob; Shri U.R. Harshakumar
A bank may limit freezes strictly to the amount requisitioned by police, with procedural safeguards requiring timely information from the police and a two-month deadline to lift the freeze if compliance is not communicated.
Headnote:
(A) BNSS Section 106 - Bank account freezing upon police requisition; court directs confinement of freezing to the amount specified in the requisition and outlines steps to balance enforcement with funds access.
(B) Proportionality and due process in freezing funds; police authority must inform bank whether freezing should continue and for how long; seizure notification to Magistrate where applicable; failure to receive compliance notice within two months necessitates lifting of debit freeze.
(C) The bank and police authorities are to cooperate by serving copy of this judgment and preserving service records.
(D) Scope of relief is limited to the requisition from the specified police authority; other freezes remain unaffected unless directed by further orders. (Facts: petitioner's account was frozen by a bank pursuant to a police requisition for ₹99,000; additional requisition for ₹800 from another authority is not before the court) (
Findings of Court:
confined freezing to the amount mentioned in the relevant requisition; police to inform whether continued freezing is required and for how long; upon receipt, bank to comply; if no intimation within two months, debit freeze to be lifted; service of judgment to police) (
Issues: whether freezing can be limited to the specific amount; how to handle ongoing freeze and compliance) (
Ratio Decidendi: court’s authority to tailor banking freezes in light of police requisitions and ensure due process) (Findings: directions to protect interests of all parties; balance between law enforcement needs and petitioner’s access to funds) (
Result: writ petition ordered with specified directions)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limitation of freezing to the specified amount; ensuring due process while complying with police requisitions. (Para 3 , 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner approached this Court, aggrieved by the freezing of his account maintained with the 6th respondent–Bank. The account was frozen based on a request received from the 5th respondent. According to the requisition received from the 5th respondent, the disputed amount was ₹99,000/-. On 23.01.2025, an interim order was passed directing the 6th respondent not to debit any amounts from the petitioner’s bank account. Subsequently, on 13.02.2025, the said order was modified, directing the 6th respondent–Bank to permit the petitioner to operate his account by maintaining a minimum balance of ₹1,88,000/-. Thereafter, on 01.04.2025, the interim order was again modified, directing the Bank to permit the petitioner to operate the account by maintaining a minimum balance of ₹99,800/-.
2. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent–
Bank, on instructions, submitted that two requisitions were received from two different police authorities. In respect of the requisition received from the 5th respondent, the amount involved was ₹99,000/-. Another requisition was received from a different police authority for an amount of ₹800/-. The said police authority has not been impleaded as a party in the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is confining his relief to the freeze imposed pursuant to the requisition received from the 5th respondent–
police authority.
4. Though notice was issued by speed post and also by email to the respondents 3 to 5, there is no representation for them. Learned Central Government Counsel appeared for the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader appeared for the 2nd respondent and learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions incorporating sufficient conditions to protect the interest of the respondent police authority also to avoid delay in disposal of the writ petition. The directions are issued only regarding freeze imposed on the requisition from the 5th respondent.
I hence dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
(i) The respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing of the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his account beyond the said limit;
(ii) The 5th respondent Police Authority is hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the aforesaid manner; and if so, for how long;
(iii) On the Bank receiving the aforesaid information/intimation from the 5th respondent Police Authority, they shall comply with it and complete necessary action - either continuing the freezing or lien for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be;
(iv) The police officer concerned shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the amount in the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with Section 106 of the BNSS is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's bank account;
(v) In order to enable the Police to comply with the above direction, the Bank, as well as the petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the police officer concerned and retain proof of such service.
It is clarified that, with respect to the freeze imposed pursuant to the requisition received from the other police authority, who is not a party to this writ petition
