The court determines that bank account freezing must strictly adhere to specific requisitions by police, ensuring due process without infringing on individual rights.

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, submitted that the Bank has received one Requisition from the Respondent No.2 without mentioning the disputed amount and another Requisition from the Respondent No.6 for an amount of Rs.75,723/- 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. The learned Government Pleader for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the Requisition from the Respondent No.2 is for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The learned Government Pleader for the Respondent No.6 submitted that the Respondent No.6 has issued a Requisition for an amount of Rs.96,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bank submitted that the Requisition from the Respondent No.6 has not reached the Bank. On account of the submissions made, I take the disputed amount in the Requisition from Respondent No.2 as Rs.50,000/- and the disputed amount in the Requisition from Respondent No.6 as Rs.75,723/- for the purpose of this Writ Petition. The Respondent/Bank is free to effect the debit freezing/lien in accordance with any future requisitions received by it.

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. InNazeer 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 inS