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) 5865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SARATH P – Appellant
Versus
ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48690 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SADIQALI. M, SHRI.MOHAMED SHAFI M., SMT.NAJIYA NAZRIN P.N., SMT.SANDRANAD C. S.
For the Respondents: SMT.K.V.RASHMI, ADV. G.SHEEBA – SR.GP

Bank account freezing must align with legal requisitions, ensuring due process for account holders facing suspicion.

Headnote:This Writ Petition challenges the debit freezing/lien on the Petitioner's bank account based on police requisition, asserting violation of Sections 106 & 107 of BNSS 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court upheld guidelines derived from precedent cases regarding account freezing, emphasizing procedural fairness for account holders. The outcome mandates the Bank to disclose suspicious transactions and thus regulates the extent of any lien imposed, ensuring all actions align with legal standards and safeguarding the rights of the Petitioner.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge against bank account lien based on police requisition. (Para 1 , 3)
2. court's guidelines regarding account freezing and required procedures. (Para 4 , 5)
3. directions for the bank and police following the ruling on the account. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th 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 .

The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, 2.

after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the lien marked amount, as per the Requisition from the Respondent No.3, is Rs.1,000/-, and accordingly, the Bank has effected the same. Apart from that, the Bank has found some suspicious transactions in the account, and hence, the Bank has effected debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition.

3. The issue with respect to freezing/lien marking of the account at the instance of the police authorities 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. With respect to the classification of the account of the Petitioner as a mule account or the prevention of operations therein by the Bank without any requisition from any Police Authorities, this Court in Abdul Azeez v. Union of India [ 2025 KLT OnLine 3447 ] considered the question of whether Bank has the right or authority to freeze the accounts of its account holders on the basis of suspicion with respect to the transactions in the account by itself in the absence of any requisition to do so from a law enforcement agency. This Court held that till the time the RBI comes forward with a Standard Operating Procedure for the Banks to deal with suspicious accounts, the following guidelines are to be followed when the Bank entertains suspicion about the operation of the account:

1. If the Bank is having reason to believe suspicious transactions in the account, the Bank is free to effect a debit freeze of the account without notice to the Account Holder.

2. The Bank shall intimate the freezing of the Account to the Account Holder by sending a Communication with reasons for suspicion by SMS and Registered post on the date of freezing itself.

3. The Bank shall send a Communication detailing the freezing of the account with reasons for suspicion to the jurisdictional Cyber Crime Police Authority and all the authorities required under the Guidelines issued by the RBI and ensure its receipt by them.

4. The Account Holder is free to submit a necessary Explanation to the Bank regarding the suspicion entertained by the Bank, and on receipt of such an Explanation, the appropriate authority of the Bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the Explanation and communicate the same to the Account Holder. If the Bank is satisfied with the Explanation submitted by the Account Holder, the Bank is to de-freeze the account.

5. If no Expl

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