Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions to confi...

SHAAN SAMEER v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C.) No. 8633 of 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:29266

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2025-04-04
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed with directions: (i) confine the freezing order to the amount mentioned in the police order, enabling the petitioner to transact beyond that limit; (ii) police shall inform the bank whether the seizure should be continued and for what duration; (iii) upon receiving such information, banks shall act accordingly to either continue the freeze or withdraw it; (iv) if no information is received within the specified time, the petitioner may approach the court again; (v) police shall inform the bank whether seizure has been reported to the Magistrate, and if not, a time limit within which the report should be made; (vi) banks and petitioner shall serve copies of the judgment to the relevant officers. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions to confine the freezing of the petitioner's account to the amount in the police order, require police to inform on continuation, compel banks to act accordingly, and provide for lifting the freeze if no information is received within the specified time; allow the petitioner to approach the court again if information is not forthcoming; police to report seizure to the Magistrate within a specified period; copies to be served to relevant officer; overall disposition is in terms of the directions issued by the court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHAAN SAMEER

Respondents

  • STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KANNUR TOWN, ELLIKA PLAZA, RAJIV GANDHI RD, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670001
  • THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KATHIHAR , KORHA BIHAR, PIN - 854108
  • THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER POLICE STATION ROHINI ROHINI, DELHI, PIN - 110089
  • THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HANUMANGARGH , BHADRA RAJASTHAN, PIN - 335501 SC - SRI JITHESH MENON

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Viswanath Salish
  • • Sandra Paul
  • • NIDHA SHERIN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Jithesh Menon (Senior Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner Shaan Sameer’s bank account bearing No. 42277829836 by the 1st respondent State Bank of India, allegedly on requisitions received from police authorities (respondents 2–4). The petitioner contends that the freezing is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to due process, and seeks an order directing the bank to lift the debit freeze so that ordinary banking transactions can proceed. The petition is heard by single Judge Justice C.S. Dias, who notes that the total disputed amount, Rs. 60,517, has been highlighted by the bank, but emphasizes the need to reconcile bank freezes with police–issued orders and statutory reporting requirements. The court relies on the line of decisions beginning with Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directs that freezes be confined to the amounts specified in police orders, with banks promptly informing police about continuation and time limits for compliance. It further cites Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd and other authorities to endorse a framework that balances freezing with the right to operate accounts. The court ultimately issues procedural directions: confine the freeze to the police‑specified amount; require police to inform whether continued seizure is required and for how long; oblige banks to act accordingly; and, if no information is received within prescribed periods, permit the petitioner to seek relief again. The judgment aims to protect the petitioner’s access while ensuring police action and statutory compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Section 106 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that freezing of the account is illegal and arbitrary, and sought immediate lifting of the debit freeze to enable him to transact within the bank account. Relying on the pattern of prior judgments, the applicant argued that freezes must be limited to the amount specified by police requisitions and that blanket or extended freezes violate the petitioner’s fundamental right to operate his account unless police action warrants continued restriction. The petitioner urged the court to adopt the Dr. Sajeer framework to ensure proportionality of the freeze and prompt information flow from police to banks.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank argued that the freezing was mandated by police requisitions and that the total disputed sum is Rs. 60,517; it contended that the freeze may be sustained to the extent required by police and for the period determined by authorities. Counsel emphasized that the account holder’s access should be restricted only to the amount directed in the order, and that banks must await police confirmation on continuation of seizures. The respondents relied on established precedents that authorize measures preventing money laundering and other crimes, and pointed to the necessity of cooperation between police and banking institutions to preserve evidentiary integrity and public interest.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe court adopts the Dr. Sajeer framework directing banks to confine freezes to police-ordered amounts and to obtain timely police guidance on continuation.
Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd2024 KHC OnLine 768PositiveCourt aligns with Nazeer K.T to support proportional freezes and timelines for police reporting and banking action.
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy[1999] 7 SCC 685PositiveUsed to justify reporting to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the interaction between statutory provisions and freezing orders.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat[2018] 2 SCC 372PositiveSupports interpretation that delays in reporting may be irregular but not fatal; reinforces the need for timely information to banks.
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others[2024] SCC OnLine SC 895PositiveAffirms that delays in reporting seizures should be addressed with remedial directions and not dismissal of petitions.
W.P.(C.) 12960/2023N/A (Exhibit P4 reference)Mentioned OnlyReferenced as an exhibit; not a controlling authority for the present case’s ratio.

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 SHAAN SAMEER v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 8633 OF 2025 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SHAAN SAMEER AGED 21 YEARS ``` ``` S/O SAMEER, FALAQ, THAZHATHERU, KANNUR, CIVIL STATION KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670002 ``` ``` BY ADVS. VISWANATH SALISH SANDRA PAUL NIDHA SHERIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KANNUR TOWN, ELLIKA PLAZA, RAJIV GANDHI RD, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670001`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KATHIHAR , KORHA BIHAR, PIN - 854108`** - **`3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER POLICE STATION ROHINI ROHINI, DELHI, PIN - 110089`** - **`4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HANUMANGARGH , BHADRA RAJASTHAN, PIN - 335501 SC - SRI JITHESH MENON`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C.S.DIAS, J** **--------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 8633 of 2025** **-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2025** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed to direct the 1[st] respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.42277829836. 2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 1[st] respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 1[st] respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from respondents 2 to 4. The action of the 1[st] respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** submitted that, the total disputed amount is Rs.60,517/-. The said submission is recorded. 5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in **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 ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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], case after concurring with the view in **Dr.Sajeer's** (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya 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, ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 **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 1[st] 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. ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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; - (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; ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** - (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** SCB.04.04.25 ``` 2025:KER:29266 ``` W.P.(C.) No.8633 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8633/2025`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE USDT SALE TRANSACTION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.03.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE USDT SALE TRANSACTION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07.08.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit P3 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE USDT SALE TRANSACTION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2025 ``` ``` Exhibit P4 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN W.P(C) 12960/2023 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 25.09.2023 ```