Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
FREED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37801 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, Sri.S.SreeDev, Sri.Rony Jose, Shri.Leo Lukose, Shri.Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Shri.Derick Mathai Saji, Shri.Karan Scaria Abraham, Shri.Guha Majumder Adrish Asim, Shri.Somit Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Smt. K.M. Reshmi, Sri. Pradeesh Chacko
A bank account can only be frozen to the extent ordered by police under specified legal provisions; failure to comply with procedural requirements allows for lifting the freeze.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the debit freezing of a bank account initiated by police requisition in relation to a crime involving third parties. The Petitioner contended that it is not an accused party and criticized the freeze as violative of relevant laws, specifically citing Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court ultimately reaffirmed previous rulings concerning bank account freezing and mandated specific procedures for the continuation or cessation of such measures, allowing the Petitioner to contest future requisitions. The court concluded with explicit directives regarding the handling of the debit freeze.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges bank account freeze related to third-party crime. (Para 1 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's position and bank's compliance discussed. (Para 3) |
| 3. previously established guidelines cited for case relevance. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. court dictates multiple key directives for future compliance and actions. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, has filed
1. this Writ Petition challenging the debit freezing of its Bank account with the Respondent No.2/Bank at the requisition of the Respondent No.1/Police as per Ext.P5. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is not an accused in the Crime registered by the Police authorities against some other persons, in which the requisition was made; that the Petitioner is in no way connected with the said Crime; and that the debit freezing/lien of the account is in violation of Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) and
I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner,
2. Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, instructed by Advocate Sri. Enoch David Simon Joel, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. K.M. Reshmi for Respondent No.1 and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, Sri. Pradeesh Chacko.
Learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant
3. to the registration of Ext.P6 FIR, Ext.P5 Requisition was sent by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 seeking the details of the Account No.‘9508SIMFXAAJCT5662P’ and seeking a debit freeze for Rs.15,00,000/- which is a part of the amount of Rs.61,27,990/- involved in the Crime and that there is no other requisition for debit freeze/lien. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received only one Requisition for debit freezing of the said account of the Petitioner and it is from the Respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, and hence, the Bank has effected debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner.
This Court considered the same issue in Dr. Sajeer v.
4. Reserve Bank of India [ 2024 (1) KLT 826 ], and this Court issued the following directions.
"a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective Petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order / requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the Petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit.
b. The respondent - Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
c. On the Banks receiving the afore information / intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action - either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.
d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of direction (b) above, the Petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future."
Subsequently, this Court considered the same issue
5. in Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank , Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC 768].
In Nazeer K.T., this Court considered the scope of
6. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 106 of the BNSS ), with reference to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [ (2018) 2 S
