The court established that bank account freezes must comply with procedural requirements and limits as set by police requisitions under specified laws.

JUDGMENT

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 Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the lien marked amount, as per the Requisition from the Respondent No.2, is Rs.87,080/-, and accordingly, the Bank has effected the same. Ext.P1 Letter also shows the lien marked amount as Rs.87,080/-.

3. This Court considered the same 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. In Nazeer 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. Tapas D. Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 23], concurred with the view inDr. Sajeer (supra) and added the following two more directions:

“(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the Banks whether the seizure of 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 the Section 102 is informed to Bank within one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the Petitioner's account.

(ii) 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 officer concerned and retain proof of such service."

6. In Abhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1676] , this C