2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 PETITIONER: SHAMSUDDIN PANAKADAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O MUHAMMEDALI PANAKADAN (H) PATHAYAKKUNNU POST KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670691 BY ADVS. NESAMUDHEEN SAFA C.M. RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001 3 STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGER, KUTHUPARAMBA BRANCH, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR KERALA., PIN - 670643 4 STATE POLICE CHIEF - MIZORAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS, KHATLA, AIZAWL, MIZORAM., PIN - 796001 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 2 BY ADV AMAL GEORGE DSGI GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.31800645825. 2.The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 3rd respondent bank. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from the police. The action of the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. 3.Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent bank. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent bank submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.10,00,000/-. The said submission is recorded. 5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 4 Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows: “ 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 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 directions (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.” 6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 5 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code 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 SCC OnLine SC 895], has held thus: “8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to report the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under Sub- section (3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra). (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 S.102 is informed to bank within one month ofreceipt 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. 7. I am in complete agreement with the views in 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 6 Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions: (i) The 3rd 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 his 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 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 direction (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 him, to impel in future; 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 7 (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. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. SD/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm28/3/2025 2025:KER:26860 WP(C) NO. 8918 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8918/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 NOTICE DATED 04.10.2024 RECEIVED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT FROM 01.09.2024 TO 01.10.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 17.02.2025 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK