Kerala High Court
Sonu Kumar Shaw vs The Station House Officer on 4 July, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:48952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23409 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SONU KUMAR SHAW
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O SUBHASH CHANDRA SHAW
H NO 9/13, BL NO 9,BHATPARA(M) JAGATDAL,
NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL, PIN - 743125.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU
SMT.CHANDHANA BHAIJU
SHRI.BASIL SAJAN
SMT.FATHIM NAVAS
SMT.KAVYA RANI JAYAPRAKASH
SMT.LEKSHMI PRIYA V.
SHRI.BASIL SCARIA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034.
W.P.(C)No.23409 of 2025
:2:
2025:KER:48952
2 UNION BANK OF INDIA
NAIHATI, RABI KIRAN APARTMENT, 95,
JAN MD. GHAT ROAD, NAIHATI KOLKATA,
REPRESENTED BY AN AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIN - 743165.
3 NATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING POTAL
INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 110001.
BY ADVS.
SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY..,
SRI. A.S. P. KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL
SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DSGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.23409 of 2025
:3:
2025:KER:48952
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025 The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to forthwith defreeze the Bank Account No.6780002010005940 of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the said Bank Account with the 2nd respondent-Bank. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has frozen the petitioner's Bank Account pursuant to the requisition received from the 1st respondent. The action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, contends the petitioner.
3. The pleadings in the writ petition and arguments advanced by the counsel on either side would divulge that action to defreeze the account was taken due to doubtful transactions, perhaps involving cyber crime. The W.P.(C)No.23409 of 2025 :4: 2025:KER:48952 counsel for the petitioner would urge that the action of the respondents has abrogated the right of the petitioner protected under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the 3rd respondent.
5. Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that as per information received, there is online tampering and Cyber Crime has been reported.
6. This Court considered a similar issue in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.28524/2024. Noting the judgments in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826], Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Limited [2024 KHC OnLine 768], State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) W.P.(C)No.23409 of 2025 :5: 2025:KER:48952 2 SCC 372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 895], this Court concurred with the views in Dr. Sajeer (supra) and Nazeer K.T. (supra) and disposed of the writ petition with directions.
7. The facts involved in W.P.(C) No.28524/2024 and this writ petition are similar. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.
(i) The 2nd respondent-Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the Bank Account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order / requisition issued by the police authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his Account beyond the said limit.
(ii) The police authorities are directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's Account will be required to be continued even in the afore manner, and if so, for what further time.W.P.(C)No.23409 of 2025 :6:
2025:KER:48952
(iii) On the Bank receiving the afore information/intimation from the police authorities, the Bank will adhere with it and complete necessary action - either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein or withdrawing it, as the case may be.
(iv) If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again, for which purpose all their contentions in the writ petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.
(v) The jurisdictional police officer shall inform the Bank whether 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 proposal to comply with Section 102 Cr.P.C. is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank W.P.(C)No.23409 of 2025 :7: 2025:KER:48952 shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's Bank Account.
(vi) In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the Bank as well as the petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional police officer and retain proof of such service.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams