Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
MOHAMMED MUSHTHAQ – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34345 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.MEGHA G., SHRI.MUHAMMED ZAFWAN, SRI.N.ABHILASH
For the Respondents: SMT. O.M.SHALINA, CGC, SMT. K.M. RESHMI, SR. GP.
Debit freezing by police requisition without an accused's involvement violates constitutional rights.
Headnote:Under Section 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the Court holds that debit freezing of the Petitioner’s bank account, requisitioned by police despite the Petitioner not being an accused, violates his rights. The Court confirms past case law clarifying similar issues and directs the Bank to limit the freeze to specific amounts ordered by authorities. If subsequent information is not provided, the freeze must be lifted. Final orders are made strictly concerning compliance and potential follow-ups.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to bank account debit freeze due to police requisition. (Para 1) |
| 2. previous court decisions inform the handling of similar cases. (Para 3) |
| 3. court issues specific directions regarding account management. (Para 5) |
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
2.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received the Requisitions from the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 for a total amount of Rs.21,833.61 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.
3.
The issue is covered by the decisions of this Court in Dr. 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].
4.
This Court has been consistently issuing the directions 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.
5.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
The Respondent/Bank is directed to confine the order of i)
freeze/lien 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 ii)
hereby directed 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 iii)
information/intimation from the 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 iv)
Bank in 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 v)
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 Section 102 Cr.P.C. ( Section 106 BNSS ) is informed to the Bank within one month 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 vi)
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.
The directions of this Court in this judgment will not stand vii)
in the way of the Bank effecting freezing/lien based on the requisitions communicated in the future to t
