Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SREEHARI K – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK KOLATHUR BRANCH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38706 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ASHIS A., SMT.FATHIMA PARVEEN P.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE- SC
The court established that banks must adhere to due process when freezing accounts and must limit actions based on police requisitions to ensure the rights of non-accused account holders.
Headnote:The Writ Petitioner challenged the freezing/lien on his bank account as per the Police requisition alleging no connection to the crime. The court examined this under Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution. The court held requisition protocols must be followed by both the Bank and Police to ensure due process, keeping the petitioner's rights intact. The court framed issues concerning the legality of debit freezes when the account holder is not an accused, relying on precedents set in relevant cases. The court elucidated the necessity for police to communicate with banks regarding account seizures. The court concluded by mandating the Bank to provide details of suspicious transactions within a week and instructed the Police to timely update the Bank on the status of account freezing requisitions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to bank account lien (Para 1) |
| 2. argued necessity of communication of requisitions (Para 2 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on prior case directions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. entitlement to similar directions as previous cases (Para 7) |
| 5. disposition with directives for bank and police actions (Para 9) |
J U D G M E N T
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the debit freezing/lien of his Bank account with the Respondent/Bank at the requisition of the Police Authorities. 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 Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received two Requisitions from the Respondent No.2, of which one Requisition is for an amount of Rs.623.31 for marking lien of the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition and the other Requisition is for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, for debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, and hence, the Bank has effected the same. The learned Counsel further confirmed that there is a credit freeze on the account of the Petitioner due to a mismatch of the profile and suspicious transaction. In such case, the Bank has to furnish the details of the suspicious transactions to the petitioner, and it is for the petitioner to submit a necessary explanation for the suspicious transactions to the Bank to permit operation of the account from the side of the Bank, limiting the debit freeze/lien to a total amount of Rs.3,00,623.31. If the Bank is satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner for the suspicious transactions, the Petitioner is to be permitted to operate the account, limiting the debit freeze/lien of Rs.3,00,623.31.
3. Regarding the Debit Freeze/lien, this Court considered the issue in Dr. Sajeer v. 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."
4. Subsequently, this Court considered the same issue in Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC
768].
5. InNazeer K.T., this Court considered the scope of 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 inState of Maharashtra v.
