SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SADI SHAHIN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39553 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AMAL DEV D.S.
For the Respondents: SHRI.SREEKANTH K.M., CGC, SRI.RENJITH.R

Court emphasized the necessity of following statutory requisitions for freezing accounts and the rights of the individual affected.

Headnote:The Petitioner challenged the debit freeze/lien on his Bank account, alleging violation of Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. The Court confirmed requisition by Police Authorities for lien. The Court directed the Respondent/Bank to limit the freeze to amounts specified in Police requisitions and established timelines for continued freezing. The ruling confirms the jurisdictional Magistrate's authority over frozen amounts.

Table of Content
1. challenge against bank account freezing based on police requisition. (Para 1)
2. confirmation of requisition amounts by the bank. (Para 2)
3. citing of prior decisions to guide current directions. (Para 3 , 4)
4. clear procedural directions for the bank and police regarding the account. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026

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 Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received two Requisitions from the Respondent Nos.3 & 7 for Rs.66,000/- and Rs.4,707/- respectively, totalling Rs.70,707/-, for marking lien on the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, and hence, the Bank has effected the same.

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]

and Abhiraj 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 hereby ii)

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 information/intimation iii)

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 whether v)

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 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 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 in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top