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) 6954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
ABDUL SAMAD NC – Appellant
Versus
HDFC BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48716 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, SRI.BIBIN MATHEW, SRI.P.M.MATHEW, SRI.AMARNATH R LAL, SHRI.SANALDEV E.P., SMT.VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN, SHRI.SONYMON ANTONY, SMT.SHIFANA M., SHRI.ABHIJITH P.A.
For the Respondents: SHRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GP, SHRI.SHAHIER SING M., SC, SHRI.N.J.ASHWIN, CGC

A bank's freezing of an account upon police requisition must adhere to statutory limits and not infringe on constitutional rights.

Headnote:This writ petition involves a challenge against the debit freeze of the petitioner's bank account at the police authority's requisition, asserting no link to the accused crime. The Court reviews Sections 106 & 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 300A of the Constitution. It concludes that the petitioner may operate his account, with the freeze limited to Rs.750 while allowing future requisitions. The final ruling allows account operation but preserves the bank's rights.

Table of Content
1. challenge against bank account freeze (Para 1)
2. confirmation of debit freeze procedure (Para 2)
3. court's directive for account operation (Para 3)

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 Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that there is only a debit freeze for an amount of Rs.750/- in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition at the requisition of the Respondent No.4.

3.

Since the frozen amount involved is only Rs.750/-, I dispose of this Writ Petition directing the Bank to permit the Petitioner to operate his account forthwith, confining the debit freeze to Rs.750/-, and making it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Bank effecting debit freezing/lien based on the requisitions communicated in the future, and in such case, the Petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE sms APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48716 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION CONTAINING TRANSACTION AMOUNT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

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