Kerala High Court
Ijas Nechiparamban vs Union Of India on 23 October, 2025
WPC No.24248/2025
1
2025:KER:78947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24248 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
IJAS NECHIPARAMBAN, AGED 33 YEARS
NECHIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PALLIPADI,POOKKOTTUR P O, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676517
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.E.SAJAL
SHRI.MUHAMMED HISHAM T.
SMT.FATHIMA RINSHA T.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ; (SUBSTITUTED)
NATIONAL CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AGENCY PIMPIRI -
CHINCHWARD POLICE COMMISERATE,RAVIT MAHARASHTRA. (2nd
RESPONDENT IS SUBSTITUTED AS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHINCHWAD POLICE STATION, JQHJ+R26, GANDHI PETH, CHINCHWAD
GOAN; CHINCHWAD; PIMPRI-CHICHWAD; MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 411033
( RESPONDENT 2 IS SUBSTITUTED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED
08.07.2025 IN I.A.1/2025 IN WP(C)24248/2025.)
3 INDUSIND BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MALAPPURAM BRANCH
MALAPPRURAM., PIN - 676519
ADDL.R4 : STATION HOUSE OFFICER ,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,ULSOOR POLICE STATION,CAMBRIDGE ROAD,
ULSOOR,OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560008 ;
(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 IN
I.A.2/25 IN WP(C)NO.24248/2025.)
WPC No.24248/2025
2
2025:KER:78947
R1 BY ADVS. SMT. O M SHALINA DSGI
R2 AND ADDL.R4 BY SRI TONY AUGUSTIN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R3 BY SC SHRI.MAHADEV M.J.
SHRI.K.K.SUBEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.24248/2025
3
2025:KER:78947
JUDGMENT
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 2 Requisitions from the Respondent Nos. 2&4 for
Rs.32,440/- and Rs.8,600/- totalling Rs.41,040/- for debit
2025:KER:78947
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 freezing of accounts of
the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even
2025:KER:78947
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 [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
2025:KER:78947
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 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:78947
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 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
2025:KER:78947
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 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.
2025:KER:78947
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.
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.
2025:KER:78947
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 officer concerned and retain proof of such service.
VII. The directions of this Court in this judgment will not stand in the way
of the Bank effecting debit freezing/lien based on the requisitions
communicated in the future to the Bank with respect to the same
account of the Petitioner, and in such case, the Petitioner will be at
liberty to challenge the same.
VIII. The frozen/lien amount, if any, lying in the account of the Petitioner in
accordance with the aforementioned directions, shall be at the
disposal of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
jma
2025:KER:78947
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24248/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18-06-2025 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK MENTIONED THAT THE
AMOUNT OF RS 50,156
