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) 6182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
AYYOOB KUNIYIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43579 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.HEMANTH H.
For the Respondents: SMT.S.AMBILY, SHRI.P.ANIRUDHAN, CGC, SMT.RUPA R. NAIR, SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.), SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

The court determines requirements for bank account freezing under police requisition, balancing individual rights with law enforcement needs.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the validity of a debit freezing/lien on a bank account as per requisition from Police Authorities, asserting it violates Sections 106 & 107 of the BNSS and Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court reaffirms prior rulings and sets guidelines for the bank and police communication concerning account management, enabling the Petitioner certain rights to access his funds and seek further recourse if necessary. The Writ Petition is disposed of with specific directives regarding the account freeze.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the bank account freeze stemming from a police requisition. (Para 1)
2. confirmation of the requisition details from the bank's perspective. (Para 2)
3. court adherence to prior case law regarding bank procedures on account freezes. (Para 3 , 4)
4. issuance of specific directives for account management and police communication. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th 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 Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received a Requisition from the Respondent No.5 for an amount of Rs.45,000/- 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 Standing Counsel submitted that the account of the Petitioner is not having a balance of Rs.45,000/- in his account. In such case, the Petitioner is to be permitted to operate the bank account only if the account balance of the Petitioner reaches above Rs.45,000/- in order to enable the Respondent/Bank to effect debit freezing/lien of the account of the Petitioner for the said Requisition amount of Rs.45,000/-.

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 pro

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