Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46752
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
SHALIM P.P. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO.18656 OF 2025
For the Appellant: SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI, SHRI.SIDHARTH O., SHRI.ALBIN A. JOSEPH, SMT.NEKHA VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SHRI.BONNY BABY, ADV MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN, O.M SHALINA, DSGI
The court established the conditions under which a bank account can be frozen, balancing the petitioner's access to funds against law enforcement requisitions.
Headnote:(A) Relevant provisions governing bank account freezing and legal compliance - Sections regarding the requisition from police authorities. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Directions issued for the handling of the freezing of the bank account pending police requisition. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the freezing of his bank account by the police, with a disputed amount of Rs.14,000/- as per the police requisition. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
Directions issued for the bank to limit account freezing based on the police requisition while enabling the petitioner to transact within specified limits. (Paras 6-7)
Issues: Primary issue was the legality and conditions under which the bank account was frozen. Court aimed to balance the petitioner’s rights to access his funds against the police's requisition. (Paras 6-7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the bank must observe conditions on limitations of the freeze based on continued necessity established by the police, emphasizing procedural compliance and communication between the bank and police. (Paras 8-9)
Result: Writ petition is ordered accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to account freeze initiated due to police requisition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court directed limited conditions for account freezing. (Para 5) |
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is maintaining a savings bank account with the Manjeri branch of the 3rd respondent Bank. He approached this Court aggrieved by freezing of his account.
2. Learned DSGI appeared for the 1st respondent.
Learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 3 and 4. Notice was issued to respondents 2 and 5. Though notice was received by the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance. Service of notice on the 5th respondent was declared as completed by a separate order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Ext.P3 submitted that the disputed amount as per the requisition received from the 5th respondent is Rs.14,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank also submitted that the disputed amount is same as shown in Ext.P3.
5. Notice was issued to the 5th respondent police authority by speed post and also by e-mail as provided under Rule 51(3) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, granting sufficient time to respond. However, there is no appearance for them. 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.
I hence dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
(i) The 3rd 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 Police Authorities concerned are 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 Police Authorities, 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 officers 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 the police authority concerned shall be at liberty to approach this Court to seek review of this judgment if required.
The respondent Bank is not precluded from freezing or imposing lien on the petitioner's account on receipt of any subsequent requests/ orders from any law enforcing agencies or courts.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
