Kerala High Court

Muhammed Minhaj B S vs State Bank Of India on 4 November, 2025

                                              2025:KER:83777



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                  WP(C) NO. 38229 OF 2025

PETITIONERS

         MUHAMMED MINHAJ B S,
         AGED 39 YEARS,
         S/O. SIRAJUDHEEN B S, SALAMATH MANZIL, PALLIKARA,
         BEKAL FORT PO, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA.,
         PIN - 671316


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL
         SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
         SMT.LIRA A.B.
         SMT.DEVIKA E.D.



RESPONDENTS

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         UDUMA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         GROUND FLOOR, UP 19 103 A, ROMANA TOWER, UDUMA,
         KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA.,
         PIN - 671319

    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
         THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, UDUMA BRANCH, GROUND
         FLOOR, UP 19 103 A, ROMANA TOWER, UDUMA, KASARGOD
         DISTRICT, KERALA.,
         PIN - 671319

    3    THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
         VIJAYAWADA CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
         NEAR POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BUCKINGHAMPETA,
         VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.
                                                          2025:KER:83777
WP(C) No.38229 of 2025
                                  2

           EMAIL : [email protected],
           PIN - 520010

     4     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
           PATAMATA POLICE STATION, PSC BOSE ROAD, AUTO
           NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. EMAIL:
           [email protected],
           PIN - 520007


           BY ADV SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   04.11.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:83777
WP(C) No.38229 of 2025
                               3

                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025

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. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after

getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the

Bank has received two Requisitions from the 2025:KER:83777

Respondent Nos.3 & 4 for Rs.1,65,800/- and

Rs.17,000/- respectively, totalling Rs.1,82,800/-, for

debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner mentioned

in the Writ Petition, and hence, the Bank has effected

debit freezing of the account of the Petitioner.

3. This Court considered the same issue in Dr. Sajeer v.

Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826], and this Court

issued the following directions:

"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 2025:KER:83777

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 direction (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."

4. Subsequently, this Court considered the same issue in

Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank, Makkaraparamba Branch 2025:KER:83777

[2024 KHC 768].

5. In Nazeer K.T., this Court considered the scope of Section

102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(corresponding to Section 106 of the BNSS), with

reference to the law 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) 7

SCC 23], concurred with the view in Dr. Sajeer (supra) and

added the following two more directions:

"(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 Section 102 is

informed to Bank within one month of receipt of a copy of the

judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the 2025:KER:83777

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."

6. In Abhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1676], this Court

considered the decisions in Dr. Sajeer (supra) and Nazeer

K.T. (supra) and disposed of the Writ Petition,

incorporating the directions contained in both Dr. Sajeer

(supra) and Nazeer K.T. (supra).

7. I find that the Petitioner in this case is similarly placed, in

all respects, with the Petitioners in the aforesaid three

decisions of this Court in Dr. Sajeer (supra), Nazeer K.T.

(supra) and Abhiraj Rajan (supra), and the Petitioner is

entitled to get the same directions in this writ petition.

8. It is contended that there are chances of

uncommunicated or further requisitions for debit 2025:KER:83777

freezing/lien with respect to the same account, and in

such case, the directions of this Court in this judgment

may not stand in the way of the Banks effecting debit

freezing/lien. It is contended that utilization of the

frozen/lien amount may be at the disposal of the

jurisdictional Magistrate's Court. I find force in these

submissions, and I find it expedient to include two

additional directions to the aforesaid directions in Dr.

Sajeer (supra) and Nazeer K.T. (supra).

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

i) The Respondent/Bank is directed to confine the order of

debit freeze/lien against the account of the Petitioner only to

the extent of the amounts mentioned in the

orders/requisitions issued to the Bank by the Police

Authorities and it shall be done forthwith so as to enable the

Petitioner to deal with his account and transact therein 2025:KER:83777

beyond that limit.

ii) The respondents - Police Authorities concerned are hereby

directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing/lien of the

account of the Petitioner will require to be continued even in

the aforesaid 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.

iii) On the Bank receiving the aforesaid information/intimation

from the Police Authorities, the Bank will adhere to it and

complete necessary action - either continuing the freeze/lien

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 the Writ Petitions are left open and

reserved to him, to impel in the future.

2025:KER:83777

v) The Police Officer concerned 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. (Section 106 BNSS) is informed to the Bank within

one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the Bank

shall lift the debit freeze/lien imposed on the Petitioner's

account.

vi) In order to enable the police to comply with the above

direction, the Bank as well as the Petitioner shall forthwith