JUDGMENT : M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J. 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. In spite of service of notice to the Respondent No.6, there is no appearance for the Respondent No.6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, after getting instructions from the Bank, confirmed that the Bank has received one Requisition from the Respondent No.6 for freezing/marking lien in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition without stating the disputed amount and another Requisition from the Respondent No.3 for Rs.3,50,000/- for marking lien/freeze in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, and hence the Bank has effected the same. Apart from that, the Bank has prevented the operation of the account of the Petitioner since the Bank is having suspicion with respect to the operation of the Account and also on account of KYC non-compliance. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready to update the KYC requirements. 3. The issue with respect to freezing/lien marking of the account at the instance of the police authorities is covered by the decisions of this Court in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [ 2024 (1) KLT 826 ] Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank , Makkaraparamba Branch [2024 KHC 768] and Abhiraj Rajan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1676]. This Court has been consistently issuing the directions to the effect that the Bank is to permit the account holder to operate his account, limiting the lien to the amounts shown in the Requisitions received by the Bank so long as the Bank does not have any suspicion that the account is used for any financial cybercrime activities or money mule activities, making the frozen/lien marked amount at the disposal of the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court. Recently, the Indian Cyber Crime Co- Ordination Centre of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India has formulated an SOP for NCRP – CFCFRMS, Custody, Restoration of Money and Grievance Redressal 2026 to establish a fair and transparent system that prescribes a uniform process to be followed by all the Participating Entities. The SOP includes procedures to prevent misuse of the system of putting on hold an amount, seizure of an account and any property to help the victims of Cyber-Enabled Financial Crimes (CEFC), and to give interim custody of the amount to the victim and restoration of such property while ensuring accountability of all the participants for their action and inaction and providing avenues for time-bound grievance redressal for parties affected by actions taken based on information provided by the system. It is intended that States and UTs, working with other Participating Entities, follow the SOP and are successful in preventing defrauded money from leaving the financial system, giving interim custody and restoration of the amount to the victim, and, in the process, help create a cybercrime-resilient financial ecosystem. Clause 10 of the SOP provides for a time- bound Grievance Redressal Mechanism for the Account Holders in whose accounts the amounts are put on hold or whose account operation is suspended. It is for the Petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with Clause 10 of the SOP, with respect to the frozen/lien/hold amount. 4. With respect to the prevention of operation of the Account of the Petitioner by the Bank without any requisition from any Police Authorities, this Court has laid down certain guidelines to be followed by the Bank in Abdul Azeez v. Union of India [2025 KLT OnLine 3447] . The above SOP does not deal with the prevention of accounts by the Bank on its own suspicion without any requisition from any authority. Hence, the Respondent Bank is to follow the guidelines in Abdul Azeez (supra) since the Bank has stopped the operation of the account, entertaining suspicion. 5. Since the Requisition issued by the Respondent No.6 does not show the disputed amount, it will be an injustice if the Petitioner is totally prevented from operating the Bank Account on the basis of such Requisition. 5. Since the Requisition issued by the Respondent No.6 does not show the disputed amount, it will be an injustice if the Petitioner is totally prevented from operating the Bank Account on the basis of such Requisition. The Respondent No.6 is to be directed to inform the Bank of the disputed amount within a time frame, failing which the Petitioner shall be allowed to operate the Bank Account without any restriction, with respect to the Requisition from the Respondent No.6. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent/Bank is directed to provide details of the suspicious transactions to the Petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to enable the Petitioner to submit his explanation and is further directed to act in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines laid down by this Court in Abdul Azeez (supra) (ii)With respect to the Requisition from the Respondent No.6, the Respondent/Bank is directed to seek from the Respondent No.6, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the details of the disputed amount in the Requisition already communicated to the Bank from the Respondent No.6, sending a copy of this judgment, and the Respondent No.6 shall communicate the details of the disputed amount in the Requisition already communicated to the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of communication from the Bank and in case of default by the Respondent No.6, the Bank shall lift the freeze/lien imposed on the Petitioner's account on the basis of the Requisition from the Respondent No.6. If the Respondent No.6 communicates the details of the disputed amount within the said period to the Bank, the Respondent/Bank shall confine the order of freeze/lien against the account of the Petitioner only to the extent of the disputed amount communicated by the Respondent No.6. (iii) In case the Respondent/Bank is satisfied by the explanation submitted by the Petitioner and if the Petitioner undertakes the KYC compliance, the Respondent/Bank is directed to confine the order of 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 Respondent No.3 and also the lien amount, if any, communicated by the Respondent No.6 and permit operation of the account. (iv) The disposal of the frozen/lien/hold amount shall be in accordance with the above SOP. (v) Petitioner is free to redress his grievance through the Grievance Redressal Mechanism provided under Clause 10 of the above SOP with respect to the frozen/lien/hold amount. (vi) The Respondent/Bank is free to effect further lien/hold/freeze in case of receipt of future requisitions.