Kerala High Court
Adnan K vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ADNAN K.
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O UMMER KOYA K., RESIDING AT MONNUKANDI HOUSE,
MUSLIYARANGADI, NEDIYIRUPP, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 673638
BY ADV SADIQALI. M
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, PIN - 110001
2 THE MANAGER
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., KONDOTTY BRANCH,
KODITHODI TOWER BYPASS JUNCTION, KONDOTTY
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 673638
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER CRIME CELL, II FLOOR, THANA KOTWALI NAGAR,
GHAZIABAD DISTRICT, UTTER PRADESH, E-MAIL :
[email protected], PIN - 201001
SC SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.15110100193960.
2.The petitioner is the holder of the above
bank account with the 2nd respondent bank. The
petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has frozen
the petitioner's bank account pursuant to a requisition
received from the third respondent. The action of the
2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this
writ petition.
3.Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India and the learned counsel for the second
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the second
respondent submitted that only a lien has been
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
marked on the petitioner's bank account for Rs.1000/-.
The said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this
Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1)
KLT 826] held as follows:
" a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are
directed to confine the order of freeze against the
accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the
extent of the amounts mentioned in the
order/requisition issued to them by the Police
Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to
enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and
transact therein, beyond that limit.
b. The respondent - Police Authorities concerned are
hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to
whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these
Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the
afore 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.
c. On the Banks receiving the afore
information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they
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.
d. If, however, no information or intimation is received
by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the
petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty
to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all
their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open
and reserved to them, to impel in future."
6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.
Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768],
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case
(supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and
the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685],
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC
372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 895], has held thus:
"8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion
that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to
the Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total
failure to report the seizure will definitely have a
negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In such
circumstances, account holders like the petitioner,
most of whom are not even made accused in the
crimes registered, cannot be made to wait indefinitely
hoping that the police may act in tune with S.102 and
report the seizure as mandated under Sub-section (3)
at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the
following direction is issued, in addition to the
directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra).
(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the
banks 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 the S.102 is informed to bank
within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment,
the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
petitioner's account.
(ii) 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
officer concerned and retain proof of such service.
7. I am in complete agreement with the views in
Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above
principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on
hand.
In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ
petition by passing the following directions:
(i) The 2nd respondent Bank is directed to
confine the freezing order of the petitioner's
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 hereby
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;
(iii) On the Bank receiving the afore
information/intimation from the Police
Authorities, they will adhere with it and
complete necessary action - either
continuing the freeze for such period as
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
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 his contentions in this
Writ Petition are left open and reserved to
him, to impel in future;
(v) The jurisdictional police officers 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 of the Cr.P.C. is received by the
Bank within two months of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, the Bank 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 officer and retain proof of such
service.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm14/2/2025
2025:KER:12349
WP(C) NO. 2002 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2002/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF
THE PETITIONER'S SAVINGS ACCOUNT,
HAVING ACCOUNT NO. 15110100193960,
MAINTAINED IN THE FEDERAL BANK -
KONDOTTY BRANCH, FOR THE PERIOD OF 01-
01-2023 TO 31-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER ON 26.05.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01.01.2024 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
