High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with structured directio...

Mujeeb Rahman V.A. vs Bank Manager, The State Bank of India, Koduvalli Branch; Station House Officer, Mancherial Police Station

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 43094 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
Dispose of WP(C) No. 43094 of 2023 with directions: (a) The bank to immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority to specify the amount to be kept frozen or held in lien, within one month; (b) If the Police Authority specifies a particular amount, the bank will confine the freeze to that amount, allowing the petitioner to deal with the account beyond that limit; (c) If no information is received within two months, the petitioner may transact fully in his account, subject to future information from police; (d) Alternatively, if the Police Authority states that the entire account should be frozen, the bank will inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for up to eight months; (e) If, after eight months, the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioner may approach the court again for further directions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with structured directions to regulate freezing of the petitioner’s account in alignment with police requisitions and prior jurisprudence, balancing investigative needs with the rights of the account holder.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MUJEEB RAHMAN V.A

Respondents

  • Bank Manager, The State Bank of India Koduvalli Branch, Calicut Wayanad Road, Kozhikode (Dist.)
  • Station House Officer, Mancherial Police Station, Telangana State

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V.S. Mansoor
  • • Akhil Binoy

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Gilbert George Correya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the freezing of bank accounts in the wake of police requisitions. The petitioner, Mujeeb Rahman V.A., challenges a blanket debit freeze imposed by the State Bank of India, Koduvalli Branch, on his account, arguing that a freeze without a specified amount harms livelihood and due process. The High Court cites its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), where it held that indefinite blanket freezes are deleterious to account holders and the banking system, and must be tailored to the actual needs of the investigation. In this case, the police requisitions reportedly seek freezing of all amounts in credit in the account, without indicating any precise sum. The court notes that such blanket freezing is incompatible with the prior ruling and proposes a measured approach to safeguard the investigation while protecting account holders’ rights. The bank is described as presently unable to operate the petitioner’s account due to lack of a specific amount in the requisition. Accordingly, the court directs the bank to obtain the exact amount to be kept frozen from the Investigation Authority within one month, and to limit any freeze to that amount if specified. If no information is received within two months, the petitioner may transact fully, subject to future information. An alternative course contemplates continuing the freeze for up to eight months if the police request the entire account to be frozen, after which the petitioner can approach the court again. The order strives to balance investigative needs with the account holder’s livelihood rights while providing procedural safeguards.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contended that freezing of the account without specifying an amount constitutes an arbitrary blanket freeze that endangers the petitioner’s livelihood and banking access; urged adherence to the principles laid down in Dr. Sajeer (supra) to ensure the freeze is limited to the amount required by police requisitions and only for the period necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that, in absence of a specific amount in the requisition, the bank must maintain a freeze to preserve the integrity of the investigation; the bank should act to secure funds as per police directions and avoid prejudicing the investigation, while exploring avenues to limit the impact on the account holder.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveCourt refers to and follows the directives in Dr. Sajeer (supra) on account freezing, adopting a practice that avoids blanket indefinite freezes and protects account holders while safeguarding investigations.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mujeeb Rahman V.A. vs Bank Manager, The State Bank of India, Koduvalli Branch; Station House Officer, Mancherial Police Station and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` MUJEEB RAHMAN V.A, AGED 47 YEARS, CHEEDIKUNNUMMAL(H), KODUVALLY P.O, KOZHIKODE(DIST.), PIN – 673572. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.S.MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 THE BANK MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA KODUVALLY BRANCH, CALICUT WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE(DIST.), PIN – 673578.` ``` 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANCHERIAL POLICE STATION, TELANGANA STATE, PIN – 380008. ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI. GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` In matters relating to the freezing of accounts, this Court has already delivered a judgment inDr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of ``` ``` India [2024 (1) KLT 826]. ``` ``` 2.In the aforesaid judgment, certain ``` ``` directions were issued to the respective ``` ``` Banks, as also the Police Authorities, to ``` ``` continue the freeze for a certain period of ``` ``` time and only to the extent which was ``` ``` requisitioned by the Police. ``` ``` 3.However, what makes this case ``` ``` different from the one that was considered by ``` ``` this Court in the aforesaid judgment, is that the requisitions received by the Bank are ``` ``` stated to contain no particular amount, but seek a complete and blanket debit freeze of ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023` ``` -3- ``` ``` all the amounts in credit therein. ``` ``` 4.The legal issues and the imperatives involved have already been discussed by this Court in Dr.Sajeer(supra). A blanket freeze indefinitely, and without any period of time being stipulated by the Police, is certainly deleterious, not only to the account holders but also to the system as a whole; and the view in this regard of this Court is clearly reflected in Dr.Sajeer (supra). ``` ``` 5.However, since the Bank is now ``` ``` incapacitated from allowing the operation of the account of the petitioner because the ``` ``` requisition issued to them do not contain any particular amount, I am certain that this Court is enjoined to deal with this matter, sufficientlyprotectingboththe ``` ``` investigation, as also the account holders. I ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023` ``` -4- ``` ``` am persuaded to such course because, the blanket freeze of an account, if it is not ``` ``` imperatively necessary, will be an affront to the rights of the account holders and ``` ``` impinges even their right to livelihood, since, in this era, everyone relies upon ``` ``` banking transactions as the primary source. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, following ``` ``` Dr.Sajeer(supra), I dispose of this writ ``` ``` petition with the following directions: ``` ``` (a) The respondent Bank is directed to ``` ``` immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority and ``` ``` seek the amount which is required to be kept ``` ``` in freeze or held in lien in the account of the petitioner. This shall be done by the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023` ``` -5- ``` ``` (b) In the event that the Investigating Officer/Police Authority responds to the afore requisition and mentions a particular amount, as being the sum that is required to be kept frozen or held in lien, then the ``` ``` respondent Bank will confine the freeze/lien ``` ``` to such an extent and allow the petitioner/account holder to deal with his account and transact therein beyond that limit. ``` ``` (c) On the contrary, if no information is ``` ``` receivedfromthePolice ``` ``` Authority/Investigating officer within a ``` ``` period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent Bank, then they will allow the petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023` ``` -6- ``` ``` freeze requisition, subject to any further ``` ``` information to be received from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer in future. ``` - `(d) As an alternative, if the response` ``` from the Police Authority/Investigating ``` ``` Officer is that the entire account be frozen for any reason that is mentioned therein, thentheBankwillinformthe ``` ``` petitioner/account holder accordingly and ``` ``` continue the freeze in such a manner for a ``` ``` further period of eight months thereafter. ``` ``` (e)If, after a period of eight months, ``` ``` the requisition made by the Police ``` ``` Authorities - either to a particular sum or ``` ``` the full amount in the account of the account holder - is not withdrawn, then the ``` ``` petitioner/account holder will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023 ``` ``` -7- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to him to be impelled in future. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 43094 OF 2023 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43094/2023` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECTOFACCOUNTNO: 00000020356587209 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT ```