IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 27849 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S:

RAZAK.

AGED 57 YEARS S/O MARIYAM, KOLLANTAVIDA, ALFATHAH, PAYYOLI, BEACH ROAD, PAYYOLI, KILUR, MELADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673522 BY ADVS.

SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SMT.LIRA A.B.

SMT.DEVIKA E.D.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE FEDERAL BANK PAYYOLI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SUNSHINE COMPLEX, OPP. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 673522

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER FEDERAL BANK, PAYYOLI BRANCH SUNSHINE COMPLEX, OPP.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 673522

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY SOUTH CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, –

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, EMAIL:

COMPOLBCP@SP.GOV.IN, PIN - 560001

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE JAWAHARNAGAR POLICE STATION, RACHAKONDA, CHENNAPURAM X ROAD, PANALLLA RD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA. EMAIL: SHO-JWNGR-RCK@TSPOLICE.GOV.IN., PIN -

500083 SC-FEDERAL BANK- SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025 The petitioner holds an account with the 1^st respondent Bank at its Payyoli Branch. He has approached this Court, aggrieved by the freezing of the said account. The petitioner was informed by the Bank that the action was taken based on instructions received from various police authorities. Ext.P1 is a communication issued to the petitioner by the Bank. On 30.07.2025, an interim order was passed directing that the marking of lien/freezing, if any, shall be confined to an amount of Rs.1,68,000/. The order was passed based on the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the Bank, who stated that the account had not been frozen, but that a lien had been marked for an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/-, pursuant to a requisition received from respondents 3 and 4.

2.The learned Standing counsel appeared for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Notice was issued to the respondent police authority (respondents 3 and 4) by speed post and also by e-mail as provided under Rule 51(3) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, granting sufficient time to respond. However, there is no appearance for them.

3.The learned Standing counsel for the Bank reiterated that the total amount involved is Rs.1,68,000/- and a requisition was received from respondents 3 and 4. She further submitted that there are no other requisitions received from any other police authorities with respect to the amount mentioned above.

4.As there is no appearance for the respondents 3 and 4 despite service of notice, I hence dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

(i) The 1^st respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing of the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his account beyond the said limit;

(ii) The Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the aforesaid manner; and if so, for how long;

(iii) On the Bank receiving the aforesaid information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they shall comply with it and complete necessary action - either continuing the freezing or lien for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be;

(iv) The police officers concerned shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the amount in 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 106 of the BNSS is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of