Kerala High Court
Hajara A.P vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:62058
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025
CRIME NO.5/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/CLAIM PETITIONERS NOS.1 AND 2:
1 HAJARA A.P
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O MUHAMMED SALIM, PATTANMARU VALAPPIL HOUSE, KAIPPURAM,
THIRUVEGAPURA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 679308
2 MUHAMED SALIM
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA MOULAVI, PATTAMMARU VALAPPIL HOUSE, KAIPURAM
P.O, THIRUVEGAPURA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 679308
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEEZ NOOH
SMT.FATHIMA K.
SHRI.DANIC ANTONY
SMT.SHAFNA SINU
SHRI.AMIN ALI ASHRAF
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE SHO CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH MURALI, PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:62058
ORDER
The petitioners, husband and wife, are holding a joint Savings Bank Account with the South Indian Bank, Pulamanthole Branch. The second petitioner's implication as an accused in Cyber Crime No.5/2024 of Pathanamthitta Police Station resulted in the account being frozen. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.45262/2024. Therein, Annexure A2 judgment was rendered with the following directions:
"(i) The first 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 her 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 CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:62058 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 directions (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 her, to impel in future;
(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."
2. Even though the complete freeze on the account was lifted pursuant to the judgment, a lien for Rs.8,66,385/- was imposed on the account. The petitioners thereupon approached the court CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62058 below with the prayer to lift the lien, but the application was rejected by Annexure A6 order, primarily for the reason that the High Court having issued directions with regard to the procedure to be followed for lifting the freeze on the account, the petitioners' remedy is to approach the High Court itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, it is for the petitioner to decide whether to move the High Court alleging violation of the directions. The availability of that option cannot result in the petitioners' being prevented from seeking remedy under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It is the contention of the learned counsel that insofar as the freeze over the petitioners' account was imposed without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 106 or 107 of the BNSS, the learned Magistrate is bound to decide the application for lifting the lien.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the prayer and submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the scamming firm is having its central office in Cambodia and is controlled by a Chinese boss. The investigation also brought out the firm's involvement in collecting the details of Indian nationals through fake dating apps/Instagram accounts, CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62058 WhatsApp groups, etc. It is submitted that the issue is serious and granting permission to the petitioners to deal with the amount kept under lien will prejudice the investigation.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in spite of questioning the 2 nd petitioner in custody, no incriminating materials/statements could be brought out and no purpose is served by retaining the cash.
6. The question to be considered is whether, by reason of Annexure A2 judgment, the Magistrate is denuded of the powers vested with him under the BNSS. The answer can only be in the negative since the criminal courts are bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the BNSS. Therefore, this Court's directions in Annexure A2, does not interdict the accused from approaching and the court from considering the application on merits. The petitioners having challenged the freezing order on the premise that the procedure prescribed in Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS was not followed, the said contention is also liable to be considered.
The Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of by quashing Annexure A6 order and directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta to pass a fresh reasoned order on CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62058 Crl.M.P.No.1355/2025 in Cyber Crime No.5/2024 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, adverting to the contentions of the parties.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Shg/27 CRL.MC NO. 6940 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62058 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6940/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 5 OF 2024 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.45262 OF 2024 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE BR/0595/GEN/96/2024- 25 DATED 17.03.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THEIR BANK Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02.06.20205 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CJM, PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRL.MP NO. 1145/2025 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION VIZ. CRL. MP. NO.
1355 OF 2025 FILED BEFORE THE CJM PATHANAMTHITTA Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL M.P NO.1355 OF 2025 DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY CJM PATHANAMTHITTA IN CYBER CRIME NO.5 OF 2024 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION