The court delineated the limits of bank account freezing by police under specific statutes, ensuring petitioners can operate accounts unless properly justified.

JUDGMENT

The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the debit

1.

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 .

In spite of service of notice to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, 2.

there is no appearance for the Respondent No.2 and 3. The Registry of this Court received a copy of the communication addressed to the Government Pleader, High Court of Kerala, authorizing the Government Pleader to represent the Respondent No.2 in this Writ Petition. An ‘Affidavit in Reply’ on behalf of the Respondent No.2 is also seen sent directly to this Court. Since the same are sent directly to the Registry of this Court without appearing before this Court, the same cannot be considered by this Court. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received two Requisitions, of which one Requisition is from the Respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs.9,998.50 and the other Requisition is from the Respondent No.3 without mentioning the disputed amount, for debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, and hence, the Bank has effected debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner.

This Court considered the same issue in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve

3.

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 in Nazeer

4.

K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC

768].

In Nazeer K.T., this Court considered the scope of Section 102

5.

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 V