Banks require police requisition to freeze accounts and must provide clear communication and justification for such actions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 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 the Requisitions from the Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 for Rs.5,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.300/- respectively, totalling Rs.30,300/-, for marking lien/freeze in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, and hence, the Bank has effected the freezing of the account of the Petitioner. Apart from that, the Bank has prevented the operation of the account of the Petitioner since the Bank is having suspicion with respect to the operation of the account. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the Bank had already sent a Communication detailing the freezing of the account with reasons for suspicion to the Petitioner and the Peti- tioner has submitted his Explanation. However, the Bank is not satisfied with the Explanation submitted by the Petitioner. Hence, the Respondent/Bank is to be directed to send a Communication detailing the freezing of the account of the Petitioner with reasons for suspi-

cion to the jurisdictional Cyber Crime Police Authority and all the authorities required under the Guidelines is- sued by the RBI within a time limit as laid down in Abdul Azeez v. Union of India [2025 KLT OnLine 3447]

3. The issue with respect to the freezing of the bank account at the requisition of the police authorities is covered by the decisions of this Court inDr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826],Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC 768] andAbhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1676] . This Court has been consistently issuing the directions to the effect that the Bank is to permit the account holder to operate his account limiting the lien to the amounts shown in the Requisitions received by the Bank so long as the Bank does not have any suspicion that the account is used for any financial cybercrime activities or money mule activities, making the frozen/lien marked amount at the disposal of the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court. Recently, the Indian Cyber Crime Co-Ordination Centre of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India has formulated anSOP for NCRP – CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026 to establish a fair and transparent system that prescribes a uniform process to be followed by all the Participating Entities. The SOP includes procedures to prevent misuse of the system of putting on hold an amount, seizure of an account and any property to help the victims of Cyber-Enabled Financial Crimes (CEFC), and to give interim custody of the amount to the victim and restoration of such property while ensuring accountability of all the participants for their action and inaction and providing avenues for time-bound grievance redressal for parties affected by actions taken based on information provided by the system. It is intended that States and UTs, working with other Participating Entities, follow the SOP and are successful in preventing defrauded money from leaving the financial system, giving interim cu