Kerala High Court
Mukesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2026
[WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025]
1
2026:KER:29951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 28204 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUKESH KUMAR JAIN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/0 CHANDHAMAL JAIN, RESIDING AT 10TH D YASORAM RATAN
APARTMENTS, T.D. WEST SANNIDHI ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682305
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR
SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN
SMT.MAHIMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL RANGE, CBI RD,
NEAR CBI OFFICE, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682017
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, BROADWAY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM,, PIN -
682031
ADDL.R4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, MG ROAD, NEAR THEVARA
JUNCTION IN PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, KERALA, .( ADDITIONAL R4
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/2/26 IN IA 1/26 IN WPC
28204/25)
[WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025]
2
2026:KER:29951
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P.
SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).28966/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
[WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025]
3
2026:KER:29951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 28966 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DHARMIK JAIN
AGED 23 YEARS
SON OF MUKESH KUMAR JAIN,RESIDING AT 10TH D YASORAM RATAN
APARTMENTS, T.D. WEST SANNIDHI ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682035
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR
SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN
SMT.MAHIMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
.VIGILANCE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL RANGE,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682017
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, BROADWAY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM,, PIN -
682031
ADDL.R4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, MG ROAD, NEAR THEVARA
JUNCTION IN PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, KERALA-682015 [ADDL. R4 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.02.2026 IN IA 1/26 IN
[WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025]
4
2026:KER:29951
WP(C)28966/25]
BY ADVS.
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P NARAYANAN
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P.
SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).28204/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
[WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025]
5
2026:KER:29951
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.28204/2025, 28966/2025] Dated this the 06th April, 2026
1. Since same reliefs are sought in both these Writ Petitions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28966/2025 is the son of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28204/2025. The prayers in these Writ Petitions are to quash Exts.P1 Communications passed by the Respondent No.2 in V.C.No.09/2025/EKM directing the Respondent No.3 to freeze the bank accounts of the Petitioners mentioned in Exts.P1, to issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.3 to remove the freeze on the bank accounts of the Petitioners and allow them to use the accounts and to declare that the Bank has no right to freeze the accounts of the Petitioners otherwise than provided under Section 106 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Ext.P1 in [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 6 2026:KER:29951 W.P.(C) No.28204/2025 is dated 24.05.2025 and Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.28966/2025 is dated 22.05.2025. The allegation in Exts.P1 in both the Writ Petitions is that during the course of investigation in the said Vigilance Crime, it has come to light that the bank accounts of the Petitioners are suspected to be involved in the commission of the offence; that the action is taken to prevent the dissipation of suspected proceeds of crime and to aid in the ongoing investigation.
3. In both the Writ Petitions, the Respondent No.2 has filed Statements opposing the prayers in the Writ Petitions.
4. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar, instructed by Advocate Sri. Sreejith S. Nair, and the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. P. Narayanan.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in order to invoke Section 106 BNSS, the Police Officer must have a [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 7 2026:KER:29951 suspicion that the property sought to be seized is involved in the commission of any offence. In the V.C.No.09/2025/EKM registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28204/2025 is made an accused as Accused No.3 on the allegation that he approached the de facto complainant therein and attempted to act as a broker in the deal to give a bribe to the Accused No.1 in the said Crime, who is the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate of Kochi. Though the said Petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2025, he was granted bail by the Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, as per Ext.P3 Order dated 22.05.2025. Though the said Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 request to unfreeze the account to the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 issued Ext.P5 reply refusing to unfreeze the account of the said Petitioner. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28966/2025 is not an accused in the said Crime and there is no allegation against the said Petitioner. The learned Senior [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 8 2026:KER:29951 Counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.T. Enrica Lexie v. Doramma [(2012) 6 SCC 760], in which it is held that the property alleged to have been stolen or suspected to have been obtained after the commission of the crime and the object of the power to freeze the bank account is to ensure the preservation of the proceeds of crime to prevent it from being laundered to safer places and that a property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the Police Officer cannot be seized. There is no allegation in the case at hand to connect the bank accounts of the Petitioner with the Crime. There could not be any suspicion with respect to those accounts. Even about one year after registration of the Crime and seizure of those accounts, the Respondent No.2 could not bring out anything in the investigation to have any sort of suspicion with respect to those accounts. At any rate, the Respondent No.2 has to file an Application before the Special Judge under Section 107 of the BNSS for attachment of the bank account of the Petitioners. The [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 9 2026:KER:29951 said Application could be filed only if the money in the bank accounts of the Petitioners is proceeds of the crime as defined under Section 111(c) of the BNSS. There is no allegation in Exts.P1 that the money available in the bank accounts of the Petitioners is the proceeds of the crime. The power given under Section 106 BNSS is only for the purpose of preventing the removal of the property before filing an Application under Section 107 BNSS. Since the impugned Orders are issued without the authority of law, it is in violation of the right to property of the Petitioners provided under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the Respondent No.2 has ample power under Section 106 BNSS to seize the bank accounts of the Petitioners in order to secure the money lying therein, which is suspected to have been involved in the commission of the offences in V.C. No.09/2025/EKM. The learned Special Government Pleader [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 10 2026:KER:29951 advanced his arguments referring to the facts of the case stated in the Statement filed by the Respondent No.2. The investigation in the said V.C. revealed the involvement of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28204/2025 (Accused No.3) as a hawala agent; that Accused No.4, who is the Chartered Accountant, utilised the illegal service of the Accused No.3 to transfer Rs.5 lakhs via hawala and subsequently continued his services for bribe-related and other illicit transactions. It is revealed that Accused No.2, who demanded the bribe amount on behalf of Accused No.1, instructed the De facto complainant to deposit the money into an Axis Bank account held in the name of 'Bohra Commodities and Tour Pvt. Ltd.,' a shell company based in Thane, Maharashtra, suspected to be involved in laundering illicit funds, and that the account details of the said company were collected by Accused No.3 and handed over to Accused No.2. It is revealed that the Accused Nos.2 & 3 used their own and their relatives' bank accounts to facilitate the illegal transactions. Several images of the token are found stored [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 11 2026:KER:29951 in the mobile phone of Accused No.3 relating to Angidiya, an illegal hawala-based money transfer system. In order to prove further transactions and to avoid any chance of manipulating the evidence, the accounts have been frozen. The primary verification reveals that the disputed amount of Rs.5 lakhs was transferred to the account of the Accused No.3 and the process of analysis is carried out to trace the actual suspicious amount. The Respondent No.3 has duly reported the freezing of the accounts to the Vigilance Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, by submitting a Report which is produced along with the Memo dated 29.09.2025. In such case, the remedy of the Petitioners is to approach the Special Judge seeking direction for unfreezing the accounts. The prayer for unfreezing the account could be better adjudicated by the Special Judge since all the records relating to the Crime are available with the Special Judge. The learned Government Pleader relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 12 2026:KER:29951 [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372], Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2019) 20 SCC 119] and State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2753] and the decision of this Court in Sreekala K. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2025 KHC 188] in support of his contentions.
7. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the decisions cited by the learned Special Government Pleader are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2025 (4) KHC 181] in which it is held that the amount lying in the Bank Account can be attached only by following the procedure prescribed under Section 107 BNSS.
8. I have considered the rival contentions. [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 13 2026:KER:29951
9. Section 106 BNSS provides authority to the Police Officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
10. In the case on hand, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28204/2025 is Accused No.3 in the Vigilance Crime. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28966/2025 is not an accused in the Crime. The bank account of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28966/2025 is ordered to be frozen on the allegation that his account is also used for the commission of the offence as he is the son of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28204/2025.
11. The Respondent No.2 has frozen the accounts of the Petitioners under Section 106(1) of the BNSS. Section 106(3) of the BNSS mandates the Police Officer to report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith. The Respondent No.2 has reported the seizure to the Special Judge as per the Report dated 26.05.2025. Section 503 of the BNSS provides that when seizure [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 14 2026:KER:29951 of the property is reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Magistrate may pass order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to possession. Under Section 503, the Magistrate has ample power to release the bank accounts of the Petitioners from freezing. In Tapas D. Neogy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the Criminal Appeal arising from the order of the Magistrate's Court under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) corresponding to Section 503 BNSS and not a Writ Petition seeking release of the freezing of the accounts. In Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the legality of the Order passed by the Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted the Petitioners therein to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate after completion of the investigation and submission of the Police Report. In Nevada Properties Private Limited (supra) and Anil Kumar Dey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 15 2026:KER:29951 proceedings arising from the Order passed by the Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.P.C. In Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court was dealing with the legality of the Order passed by the Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.P.C. In view of these decisions, I am of the view that it is not for this Court to consider the legality of the freezing of bank accounts made under Section 106 BNSS for the first instance, in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the effective remedy to the Petitioners under Section 503 BNSS. When the BNSS provides an effective remedy to the Petitioners under Section 503 to get the release of freezing of the Bank Accounts, I am of the view that the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable for releasing the freezing of the bank accounts. Even though the learned Senior Counsel contended that Exts.P1 in these Writ Petitions could not be passed under Section 106 of the BNSS and that they do not satisfy the conditions in Section 106, I am of the view that the legality of Exts.P1 is also a matter for the [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 16 2026:KER:29951 jurisdictional Magistrate to consider. If the jurisdictional Magistrate decides under Section 503 BNSS to release the freezing of the bank accounts, the effect is that Exts.P1 become inoperative and there is no need to set aside the same.
12. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28966/2025 is not an accused in the Crime and there is no allegation against his account, and hence his account could not be frozen. In Tapas D. Neogy (supra), while considering Section 102 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 106 BNSS, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the bank account of the accused and his relations are properties within the meaning of the said provision and a Police Officer in the course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence which the Police Officer is investigating into. In Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if a person is not [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 17 2026:KER:29951 included as an accused in the FIR, if during investigation the Investigating Officer believes that he is actively associated with the institution involved in the crime and the transactions from the bank accounts of such institution create suspicion of commission of offence, the Investigating Officer can exercise his discretion to issue directions to seize the accounts of such person.
13. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, holding that the Petitioners have an effective alternative remedy under Section 503 BNSS to approach the Special Judge for the release of freezing of their bank accounts.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE Jma/xshg [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 18 2026:KER:29951 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 28204 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. VC 09/2025/EKM ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.05.2025 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN V.C 09/2025/EKM VIGILANCE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CMP NO. 323/2025 OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.07.2025 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN V.C 09/2025/EKM DATED 11.07.2025 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2024 TO 10.07.2025 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IS IN BAIL APPLN. NO.
6918/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT [WP(C) Nos.28204/2025& 28966/2025] 19 2026:KER:29951 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 28966 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. VC 09/2025/EKM ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.05.2025 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN V.C 09/2025/EKM VIGILANCE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CMP NO. 323/2025 OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.07.2025 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN V.C 09/2025/EKM DATED 11.07.2025 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2024 TO 02.07.2025 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLN NO.
6918/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10/07/2025