Kerala High Court
Abuniyas Vp vs Idfc First Bank on 11 November, 2025
2025:KER:85786
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 20TH KARTHIKA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 38465 OF 2025
PETITIONER
ABUNIYAS VP,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O ABOOBAKKER SIDHEEQUE VP, CHOLYAIL HOUSE,
CHENGARA, IRUVETTIL PO, KAVANOOR, KERALA,
PIN - 673639
BY ADV SHRI.HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENTS
1 IDFC FIRST BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, EAST FORT THRISSUR
BRANCH GROUND FLOOR, EAST FORT TOWER, OPP. LOURD
CHURCH, EAST FORT ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA-,
PIN - 680005
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
STATE CYBER CELL GUJARAT, CID CRIME 7TH FLOOR,
BLOCK 2, KARM YOGI BHAVAN, SECTOR-10 A,
GANDHINAGAR GUJARAT -,
PIN - 382010
OTHER PRESENT:
P.SATHISAN- SC
2025:KER:85786
WP(C) No.38465 of 2025
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:85786
WP(C) No.38465 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th 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 a Requisition from the Respondent 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 4 No.2 for an amount of Rs.2,81,431/- 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 freezing of accounts of the Petitioners in these 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 5 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 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 6 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 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 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 7 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."
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 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 8 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 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 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 9 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.
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 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 10 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.
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 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 11 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 Cak 2025:KER:85786 WP(C) No.38465 of 2025 12 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38465/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTION AND DISPUTED AMOUNT SHOWING IN A TABULAR COLUMN AS PROVIDED BY THE BANK