SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
MUHAMMED NISHAL M.P. – Appellant
Versus
THE GRIEVANCE OFFICER NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL - NCCRP, KERALA REGION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15086 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.HAMZATH ALI V.K., SMT.AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K., SHRI.MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K., SHRI.ABDULLA FUHAD K., SMT.AYISHA THASLEEMA N.P.
For the Respondents: SHRI.HARIGOVIND S.NAIR, SRI TONY AUGUSTINE - GP, SRI GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - SC

The court clarified procedures regarding the freezing of bank accounts by police authorities and the mandatory reporting of seizures to maintain a balance between law enforcement and individual rights.

Headnote:(A) Directions given to Police Authorities regarding freezing of a bank account under investigation. The Court ordered that the police must inform the bank if the freezing is to be continued and for how long, and the bank must act accordingly. Delay in reporting the seizure to jurisdictional Magistrate leads to automatic lifting of freeze after two months. (Paras 3 and 3.3)

(B) Writ of Mandamus - Court directed compliance by Police Authorities to facilitate judicial process and ensure the rights of the petitioner are protected.

Table of Content
1. representation of parties in court. (Para 1)
2. bank's compliance with police directions. (Para 2)
3. court directives regarding account freezing. (Para 3)
4. order for compliance and future actions. (Para 4 , 5)

S. MANU, J -------------------------------------------------------------

WP(C) No. 15086 of 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025

JUDGMENT

The learned Government Pleader appeared for the 1st respondent, the learned Central Government Counsel appeared for the 2nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the 3rd respondent. Though notice was issued, there is no appearance for the 4th respondent.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank, on instructions, submitted that the impugned action was taken by the Bank on the instructions received from the 4th respondent. However, no particular amount was mentioned in the requisition issued to the Bank.

3. As there is no appearance for the 4th respondent, though notice was issued, I dispose this writ petition with the following directions:-

(i) 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 and if so, for how long. They shall also intimate as to whether freezing/lien can be confined to any particular amount;

(ii) 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, or by limiting it as the case may be;

(iii) 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;

(iv) 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.

4. It is clarified that the police authority concerned shall be at liberty to approach this Court to seek review of this judgment if required.

5. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top