A bank account cannot be totally frozen based on a police requisition if the disputed amount is not specified; the freeze must be limited to the disputed amount, and account holders can seek redressal via the NCRP-CFCFRMS SOP 2026.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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. In spite of service of notice to the Respondent No.2, there is no appearance for the Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received the Requisition from the Respondent No.2 for freezing/marking lien in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the disputed amount is not stated in the Requisition. Hence, the Bank has effected freezing of the account of the Petitioner.

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]. 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.

4. Recently, the Indian Cyber Crime Co-Ordination Centre of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India has formulated an SOP 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 custody and restoration of the amount to the victim, and, in the process, help create a cybercrime-resilient financial ecosystem.

5. Clause 10 of the SOP provides for a time-bound Grievance Redressal Mechanism for the Account Holders in whose accounts the amounts are put on hold or whose account operation is suspended. It is for the Petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with Clause 10 of the SOP, with respect to the frozen/lien/hold amount.

6. Since the Requisition issued by the Police Authorities does not show the disputed amount, it will be an injustice if the Petitioner is totally prevented from operati