Kerala High Court
Anwar Sajid vs The Manager, Icici Bank on 20 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 3716 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:14437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3716 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANWAR SAJID
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O SAJEEVANM ZAFROSE, KODAPPARAMBU, KANNUR CITY PO,
KANNUR KERALA, PIN - 670003
BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL HADI M.P.
SRI.SHAKEEB C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER, ICICI BANK
KALOOR BRANCH, ICICI BANK LTD, NADUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KALOOR - KADAVANTHARA RD, GANDHI NAGAR, KALOOR,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682017
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
OFICE OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TEKKALI RURAL CIRCLE
OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH- EMAIL-
[email protected], PIN - 532201
BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K JOSEPH
SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)(K/1651/2000)
SRI.T.A.LUXY(K/000701/1997)
SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997)
SRI.ANZIL SALIM(K/000447/2018)
SRI.SANJAY SELLEN(K/885/2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3716 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:14437
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's bank
account bearing No.000401233453.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above
bank account with the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner
contends that the 1st respondent has frozen the petitioner's
bank account pursuant to a requisition received from the
2nd respondent. The action of the 1st respondent is illegal
and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent.
4. When the writ petition came up for
consideration on 29.01.2025, this Court directed the 1 st
respondent bank not to debit any amount from the
petitioner's bank account till the date of next hearing.
2025:KER:14437
5. The learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent
bank submitted that there is no amount mentioned in the
requisition received from the 2nd respondent.
6. 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."
7. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.
Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768],
after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra)
2025:KER:14437
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 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.
2025:KER:14437
8. 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 1st 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 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;
2025:KER:14437
(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
NAB
2025:KER:14437
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3716/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE BANK
ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.02.2024 TO
27.12.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 41A
OF CRPC DATED 06.12.2024
