Sonu Kumar Shaw vs The Station House Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 606 Ker

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

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)

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.

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

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