The Court established that debit freezing requires careful adherence to legal protocols and the rights of individuals must be preserved during such actions.

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 .

2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, submitted that the Bank has received a Requisition from the Respondent No.2 without mentioning the disputed amount. The learned Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 confirmed that the disputed amount in the Requisition from the Respondent No.2 for debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition is Rs.50,000/-. Taking into account the said submission, I take the disputed amount for the debit freeze to be Rs.50,000/-.

3. The issue is covered by the decisions of this Court inDr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826],Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC 768] andAbhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1676] .

This Court has been consistently issuing the directions

4.

contained in the aforesaid decisions with two other directions for effecting uncommunicated/further requisitions for debit freeze/lien and making the frozen amount at the disposal of the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court. This Writ Petition is to be disposed of, incorporating the same directions.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following

5.

directions:

The Respondent/Bank is directed to confine the order of freeze/lien i)

against the account of the Petitioner only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the orders/requisitions issued to the Bank by the Police Authorities, and it shall be done forthwith so as to enable the Petitioner to deal with his account and transact therein beyond that limit.

The respondents - Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed ii)

to inform the Bank as to whether freezing/lien of the account of the Petitioner will require to be continued even in the aforesaid 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.

On the Bank receiving the aforesaid information/intimation from the iii)

Police Authorities, the Bank will adhere to it and complete necessary action - either continuing the freeze/lien for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.

If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in iv)

terms of direction (ii) above, the Petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all his contentions in the Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to him, to impel in the future.

The Police Officer concerned shall inform the Bank whether the v)

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 Section 102 Cr.P.C. ( Section 106 BNSS ) is informed to the Bank within three months of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the Bank shall lift the freeze/lien imposed on the Petitioner's account.

In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the vi)

Bank as well as the Petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of