Vyshakh Unnikrishnan v. ESAF Small Finance Bank Ltd and Inspector of Police Cyber Crime PS
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. DIAS
- Judgment Date
- 2025-03-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is ordered with directions: (i) the first respondent bank shall confine the freezing order to the extent of the amount mentioned in the police order, enabling the petitioner to transact beyond that limit; (ii) the police authorities shall inform the bank whether continued freezing is required and, if so, for what period; (iii) upon receiving such information, banks shall adhere to it and either continue the freeze for the specified period or withdraw it; (iv) if no such information is received, the petitioner may approach this Court again, with all contentions left open; (v) the jurisdictional police officers shall inform the bank whether the seizure has been reported to the Magistrate and, if not, the time frame for reporting; (vi) to enable compliance, the bank and the petitioner shall serve a copy of this judgment on the concerned officer, with proof of service.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions to confine the freeze to the specified amount, obtain timing/continuation information from police, and ensure bank compliance; liberty to approach this Court again if information is not provided; service of judgment to relevant officers.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Vyshakh Unnikrishnan
Respondents
- ESAF Small Finance Bank Ltd
- Inspector of Police Cyber Crime PS
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Viswanath Salish
- • Sandra Paul
- • Nidha Sherin
Counsels for Respondents
- • Rashmi K.V
Case Synopsis & Summary
The writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner Vyshakh Unnikrishnan’s bank account No. 53210001103946 by ESAF Small Finance Bank in pursuance of a police requisition. The petitioner contends that the debit-freeze is arbitrary and that the entire balance has been blocked, depriving him of the ability to operate his funds, though he is not an accused in any case. The bank submitted that the account is totally debit-freeze in line with the police directive. In considering a similar matter, this Court relied on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directed banks to confine freezes to the amount mentioned in the order and to obtain timely information from the police about continuation. The Court also cites Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC Online 768), which concurred with Dr. Sajeer and emphasized Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. Accordingly, the Court disposes the petition with directions: confine the freeze to the specified amount; require police information on continuation; banks to act; and if no information is received, the petitioner may approach this Court again. The judgment also requires service of the judgment on the concerned authorities.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner submits that the bank has debit-freeze his account beyond the police order, rendering him unable to operate funds despite not being an accused. He seeks lifting or narrowing of the freeze to the amount specified in the requisition. He relies on the principle laid down in Dr. Sajeer v. RBI directing banks to confine freezes to the requisition amount and to obtain police guidance on continuation, thereby protecting the petitioner’s right to access funds within the limit. The petitioner also argues that indefinite freezing causes financial hardship and that concurrent directions from this Court in related matters should be followed.
Contentions of Respondents
The bank contends that the account is totally freezed in accordance with the police requisition, and that releasing funds beyond the freeze would undermine the seizure and the police’s investigation. The bank submitted that it has acted on the bank’s understanding of the requisition and that any modification should come with police guidance and court direction to ensure compliance with law and the objective of the freeze.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India | 2024 (1) KLT 826 | Positive | Court relied on Dr. Sajeer for directing banks to confine freezes to the amount in the police order and to obtain police guidance on continuation. |
| Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd | 2024 KHC OnLine 768 | Positive | Court followed this decision, concurring with Dr. Sajeer and applying its reasoning on freezing and reporting under Cr.P.C. provisions. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy | [(1999) 7 SCC 685] | Positive | Cited for interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. in light of Supreme Court guidance. |
| Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat | [(2018) 2 SCC 372] | Positive | Cited for interpretation guidance on Section 102 Cr.P.C. principles. |
| Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others | [2024 SCC Online SC 895] | Positive | Cited to support the principle that delay in reporting seizure has implications for validity and to justify additional directions. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Vyshakh Unnikrishnan v. ESAF Small Finance Bank Ltd and Inspector of Police Cyber Crime PS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.