The petitioner, Muhammed K., seeks a writ to direct the 3rd respondent bank (HDFC Bank, Kalpetta) to lift the freeze on his bank account No. 50100540076980. The bank had frozen the account pursuant to a requisition from the 4th respondent police authorities. The court notes the disputed amount is Rs. 1,22,504 and records the bank’s stand that the freeze was based on police directions. In addressing an identical matter, the court cites Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024) and Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank (2024 KHC OnLine 768), adopting the principles that freezing should be confined to the amount specified in the order/requisition and that banks must obtain information from police about continuation of the freeze within a specified timeframe. The Court also relies on Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 BNSS, 2023) and related Supreme Court guidance in Maharashtra v. Neogy, Teesta Setalvad, and Shento Varghese to emphasize timely reporting to magistrates and proportional freezing. Accordingly, directions are issued to confine the freeze to the specified amount, have police inform banks of continuance needs, and if no intimation is received within two months, lift the debit freeze. The petition is disposed with these directions, ensuring petitioners may operate beyond the restricted amount with prompt compliance obligations on police and banks.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 This is a bail application by the petitioner, Kiran Payas, the 2nd accused in Crime No. 376/2024 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District, under NDPS Act sections 22(c), 20(b)(II)A, 27A and 29 read with Section 24 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act. The prosecution contends a conspiracy among accused 1–6 to procure narcotic drugs for illegal profit; 1st accused allegedly received Rs.1.5 lakh and, with others, traveled to Bangalore to purchase 180 g of MDMA; upon return, 80 g was handed to the 4th accused, and 101.09 g of MDMA was seized in Maradu. The 2nd accused is claimed to be actively involved. After hearing, the court observed Annexure 3’s paragraph 8 noting that the 1st accused confessed handing over 80 g to the petitioner. Relying on ToFan Singh’s case, the court found reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioner may not have committed the offences; the investigation is complete and the charge sheet filed, and the rigour under Section 37 NDPS stands diluted. The court also relied on judicial pronouncements that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, citing Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan and Manish Sisodia. The bail application is allowed with conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appearance before IO, no travel outside India, and prohibition of committing a similar offence; bail may be cancelled for violations.
Bail Appl. No. 3660 of 2025 Fr. Nelson Kollanassery, the petitioner, is the accused in Thrikkakara Police Station Crime No. 82/2025, charged under IPC sections 376(2)(n) and 420. He seeks bail under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that from 04.05.2022 onward, a defacto complainant, who knew the petitioner as a priest, was lured by false promises of marriage and, on several dates—09.12.2022, 08.01.2023, and 26.05.2023—engaged in sexual intercourse at her residence. It is alleged that the petitioner recorded video footage of these acts and obtained Rs.1,43,000 from her. The defense contends that, even accepting the allegations as true, the relationship was consensual and acknowledges the petitioner’s social position as a priest; bail would be possible under stringent conditions if the Court grants it. The court notes a long-standing relationship and that the complainant herself admitted a sexual relationship. The Judge relies on established bail doctrine: bail is the rule, jail the exception; arrest should not be routine and must be justified; personal liberty is fundamental. Citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, the Court finds grounds to grant bail with conditions. The conditions require the petitioner to appear before the IO for two days within two weeks, and, after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, release on Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties. The petitioner must not leave India, must refrain from similar offences, and may face recoveries under the Court’s order.
BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 These connected bail applications, heard by the Kerala High Court, arise from Crime No. 247/2025 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The petitioners, two accused in a matrimonial dispute, challenge their remand in relation to offences under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, registered in the context of alleged acts to cause mental agony to the defacto complainant and her minor children, including denial of dress and coercive behavior, and for violating an interim order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara (MC 19/2024). The petitions were heard with connected bail application 2884/2025. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the allegations arise from a matrimonial dispute; maximum punishment is up to three years; the incident allegedly occurred on 07.02.2025; the interim order may have lapsed; custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The defacto complainant’s counsel opposed bail, arguing that even if the main case is withdrawn, the interim order, when in force, justifies strong action. The court acknowledged the seriousness but found the potential sentence modest, observed ongoing proceedings in Family Court and Magistrate Court, and applied the well‑established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Applying Supreme Court precedents, it released the petitioners on bail with strict conditions, balancing personal liberty with the investigation’s needs.
MACA Nos. 2390 & 711 of 2012 This common judgment of the Kerala High Court arises from two Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 2390/2012 and 711/2012) arising out of OP(MV) No.149/2011 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The petitioner (Nidheesh M.S.) challenged the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation for injuries sustained in a 2010 accident involving a van and a lorry driven rashly by the third respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.74,200 in total. On appeal, the court revisited factual determinations including the claimant’s income, disability, future prospects, and multipliers, applying established jurisprudence. It accepted medical board disability (3%) and adjusted the notional income to Rs.10,000/month, aided by Ramachandrappa for notional income guidance, Pranay Sethi for future prospects (40%), and Sarla Verma for the multiplier (17). The court increased compensation on several heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transport, etc.) and held the claimant entitled to Rs.2,77,630 in total. It also addressed pay-and-recovery against the owner/RC, citing Oriental Insurance’s Vineetha Nair line of authority, but ultimately directed payment from the insurer with adjustments against the owner, including refund of amounts already paid by the owner. The Appeals were disposed with a two-month deadline for payment, bearing interest at 8% on enhanced sums. The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court.
MACA No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 This Kerala High Court judgment, dated 19 February 2025, arises from a Motor Vehicle Accident claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The appellant-insurance company (5th respondent) challenged the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. (M.V.) No.673/2013 for injuries sustained in a 2 September 2012 accident involving a Nano car and an Innova car. The cross objector, T.K. Latha, challenged the quantum; the insurer of the Nano car (5th respondent in MACA) was also involved along with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,07,650, directing payment by the Nano car’s insurer. On appeal and cross-objection, the High Court re-examined the income, dependency, disability, and maintenance of future prospects, invoking Ramachandrappa for notional income (8,500 per month for a coolie in 2012), and applying Pranay Sethi for 25% future prospects and Sarla Verma for a multiplier of 14. It held the petitioner’s notional income at Rs.8,500 and allowed 20 months of loss of earnings, plus enhanced heads for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, resulting in a total of Rs.28,28,250. The case is disposed with directions to deposit this amount within two months at 8% interest and to disburse after deposit.
Manu Mohan, accused in Crime No.1016/2020 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha, seeks quashing of proceedings in CC No.920/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, under sections 498A, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. The petitioner relies on a genuine settlement with the de facto complainant, Harsha V Krishnan, who, it is stated, is divorced, remarried, and has no interest in pursuing the prosecution. On recording, the de facto complainant stated the disputes are settled and has no objection to quashing; she also submitted an affidavit confirming the settlement’s bonafides. The High Court refers to established jurisprudence, including B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, to assess whether quashing is permissible where the ends of justice require it, even in non-compoundable offences. The court notes there is little likelihood of conviction given the settlement and that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process, undermining the legitimate interests of the parties. The court ultimately accepts that the settlement is genuine and in the interests of justice, and allows the Criminal Misc. Case, quashing the proceedings and all further actions in CC 920/2020 and Crime No.1016/2020.
The writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court seeks to lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s bank account No. 44142600008430 by the Canara Bank, Calicut-Koduvally branch, following a police requisition. The petitioner asserts that the freezing action is arbitrary and overbroad, hampering his ability to operate his own bank account and causing undue hardship while the investigation proceeds. The bank shows a disputed amount of Rs. 5,244 as per Ext. P2 and contends the freeze was a lawful response to the police requisition, not a punitive measure against the petitioner, and that the amount involved should be preserved for the criminal process. In considering an identical matter, the court cites Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024) and subsequent Kerala High Court and other judgments, which direct banks to confine freezes to the police-ordered amounts and require police to inform banks whether further continuation of the freeze is needed, within a specified time frame. The judgment also invokes Section 102 Cr.P.C (now Section 106 BNSS, 2023) and supports the view in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen that timely reporting to magistrates and banks is essential to the validity of seizures. The Court disposes the petition by issuing detailed directions to banks and police to coordinate within time-bound limits, enabling the petitioner to transact beyond the freeze and reserving rights for further action if information is not provided.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 This bail application under Section 482 CrPC arises from Crime No. 889/2024 of Mannarkkad Police Station. The petitioner, JINSHA K.S, is the sixth accused in a case involving allegations that CVR Multy Speciality Hospital officials, including the Chairman and Directors, induced the complainant and relatives with promises of profit and free medical treatment, prompting deposit of money in the hospital. The complainant allegedly paid Rs. 25 lakhs, but the money and promised profits were not provided. The main accused have already been arrested and released on bail, while the petitioner is described as a PRO of the hospital, not in charge of day-to-day affairs. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing allegations that the petitioner also collected money. The Court weighed these contentions, noting the absence of direct involvement of the petitioner in running the hospital and the fact that the principal accused are already bailed. Citing established bail principles that favor liberty, the Court held that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. It relied on Supreme Court authorities including Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar v. State, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to justify the approach. The order ultimately directs release on bail with specified conditions to safeguard the investigation while protecting personal liberty.
This is a criminal revision petition by Sivadasan challenging a Kozhikode Sessions Court judgment that convicted him under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for possession of 20 litres of wash, the essential raw material for distilling arrack, seized from his house during an Excise search. The trial court imposed simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default sentence. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence on appeal. The petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and that ownership or dominion over the premises was not established; he also argues misapplication of the law and improper appreciation of evidence. The State counters that the accused was found stirring the wash in his own compound, amounting to possession or control of contraband material, and that the revision court cannot reweigh evidence as in an appeal. The High Court relies on established principles that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and reviews whether a miscarriage of justice occurred. It also discusses the test of possession, distinguishing physical possession from constructive possession and emphasizing dominion or control over the contraband articles. After considering the record and authorities, the court allows the petition in part, maintains the conviction and fine, but reduces the default imprisonment to 15 days, directing execution in the modified form.”
The writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam seeks directions to lift the debit freeze on the petitioner’s bank account numbered 99980109925722, held with the first respondent bank. The petitioner alleges the debit freeze was imposed by the bank in response to requisitions from the Police authorities (respondents 4 and 6) and contends that the action is illegal and arbitrary. The matter was heard with arguments from the petitioner’s counsel and the bank’s counsel. The court notes the total disputed amount involved is Rs 56,500 and cites an identical matter decided in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) (1) KLT 826), which directed banks to confine freeze orders to the amounts specified in police orders and to obtain timely information from police authorities regarding continuation of the freeze. The judgment also relies on subsequent Karnataka/High Court and Supreme Court authorities including Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd; State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy; Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat; and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, to emphasize the necessity of timely reporting to magistrates and to police authorities, and to permit banks to lift freezes if compliance is not forthcoming within prescribed timeframes. The court finally directs the bank to limit the freeze to the stated amount, require police to inform banks on continuation, and empower banks to lift the debit freeze if no information is provided within the specified periods, while keeping the petitioner’s contentions open for future action.
CRL.Appeal Nos.2373, 2374 and 2377 of 2010 This judgment arises from CRL.Appeal Nos. 2373, 2374 and 2377 of 2010, challenging a common conviction by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kottayam, for misappropriation of Panchayat funds under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, P.T. Karuppan, who served as Executive Officer (Secretary) of Karimannoor Panchayat in 1992-93, along with co-accused, was found guilty of offences under PC Act sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) and IPC sections 409 and 477A, in three separate road-maintenance cases. The cases arose from alleged conspiracy to misappropriate funds meant for road upkeep in the Karimannoor Panchayat, based on maintenance works on Mannarathara–Kottakkavala, Unichikkavala–Mulappuram, and Manakkappadam–Harijan Colony. The prosecution relied on contract documents, engineering supervision, measurement books (M-Books), and reports by PW4, alleging discrepancies between estimates and actual work. The Special Court convicted the appellant while acquitting the engineers, finding misappropriation. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence, noting inconsistencies in witness testimony (PW1, PW8), but acknowledging that engineers bore supervisory responsibility. Relying on established jurisprudence that mere irregularities or suspicion cannot sustain conviction, the High Court reversed the conviction, and allowed the appeals, acquitting the appellant in all three CC Nos. 111, 112, and 113 of 2008.
This is a criminal revision petition filed by Sunil P. Elias challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA) and a related order of compensation under Cr.P.C. The Kerala High Court, upon hearing on 28 March 2025, examines the factual matrix surrounding Ext. P7, a signed blank cheque allegedly issued for loan transactions, and the accompanying loan dispute with the Thodupuzha Primary Co-operative Bank. The trial court convicted the petitioner; the appellate court reduced the sentence but did not overturn the conviction. The High Court scrutinizes whether the prosecution proved the execution and issuance of the cheque, a burden the court historically places on the complainant, especially when the signatory’s identity is admitted. PW1’s testimony is found incredible and inconsistent, revealing that the cheque relates to a prior loan rather than the transaction described in the complaint. The submission based on Padma Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. MIRC Electronics (2024) is considered, but the judgment anchors its reasoning in the principle laid down in Conductors’ case that the prosecution must prove issuance and execution through witnesses who have direct knowledge. Because the complainant failed to establish these elements, the High Court allows the revision petition, sets aside the conviction and sentence, and orders the accused’s liberty. The Bank is thus deprived of the impugned conviction.
The writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account No. 6287350227 by the 4th respondent bank, allegedly on requisitions received from police authorities. The petitioner contends that the debit freeze is illegal and arbitrary and seeks immediate lifting so he can operate the account. The respondents contend that the disputed amount is Rs. 15,000 and that the freeze is in pursuance of police requisitions; the action is thus justified to secure the process of law. The matter was heard with submissions from the Petitioner’s counsel, the Government Pleader, and counsel for the 4th respondent bank. In considering an identical matter, the court cites Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directs banks to confine freeze to the amount specified in police orders and to enable petitioners to transact beyond that limit, while police must inform banks within a specified period about continuation of the freeze. The court also references Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) and cites 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 (2024 SCC OnLine SC 895) to justify timely reporting and lift of freezes where required. The judge, C.S. Dias, directs the bank to confine the freeze to the amount mentioned in the police requisition and to await police information on continuation within a defined window; if no information is received, the bank may lift the freeze, with the petition left open for relief in future. The petition is thus disposed with directions to safeguard the account holder’s access while ensuring police seizure actions are respected.
The petitioner, a devotee of Sree Thalayanakkad Siva Temple (a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board), filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the appointment of non-hereditary trustees (NHs) to that temple via Ext. P2 dated 14 February 2024, which named respondents 9 to 12 as NH trustees for two years. He sought a mandamus to constitute a selection committee for NH trustee appointments (comprising the Commissioner's nominee, the Executive Officer, the Tanthri, the Melsanthi, and a hereditary trustee), and a writ quashing Ext. P2 and directing the 5th and 6th respondents to fill the post from Ext. P1’s list after fair procedure. The petition was admitted on 29 February 2024 and interim relief was granted on 27 March 2024, staying Ext. P2 to the extent it affected respondent No.12. The court traced doctrinal authorities emphasizing fair, transparent processes and caution against political entanglements in temple administration. It noted that Section 39(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HR&CE) 1951 governs NH trustee appointments, but that fairness requires affording hereditary trustees a hearing and opportunity to present views, rather than requiring their concurrence. The court also underscored the role of the scheme under Section 58, and the need for broad publicity, objection channels, and reporting by Divisional Inspectors. Ultimately the court disposed of the petition with directions: file a revision under Section 18 within three weeks, the Commissioner to decide within two months with a reasoned order, and the interim stay to continue until decision; the wide-notice and publicity directions were made absolute.
This writ petition challenges the debit freeze on the petitioner's bank account No. 334101000009426 by Indian Overseas Bank (IOB). The petitioner, a 22-year-old, contends that the bank froze the account on police requisitions in an unlawful and arbitrary manner, significantly impacting his ability to operate his finances. The bank discloses that the amount in dispute is Rs 8,131 and justifies the freeze on police directions. The court relies on prior Kerala decisions, notably Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), to frame the principal remedy: freezes should be confined to the exact amounts mentioned in police orders, with banks notifying police authorities about whether continued freezing is required and for what period, and with banks acting promptly to adjust freezes accordingly. The judgment also cites Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd and, more broadly, the line of cases including State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, to reinforce the need for timely reporting and limits on freezes. In light of this, the court directs the 1st respondent bank to confine the freeze to the amount specified, directs police to inform the bank about continuation, and lays down a two-month time frame for removal of the freeze if no information is received. The petition is disposed of with these directions to safeguard the petitioner’s rights while acknowledging police and bank responsibilities.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 Ansari Yousaff, an accused in Crime No.4/2025 of Thodupuzha Police Station, approaches the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution’s case alleges that the defacto complainant paid a substantial sum to the petitioner to arrange a course in Latvia for Transportation Technology and Logistics, thereby accusing him of cheating under Sec. 318(4) BNS 2023. The court records that, previously, on 02.04.2025, it directed the petitioner to appear before the IO on 04.04.2025 for interrogation to determine whether custodial interrogation was necessary, and that the petitioner would not be arrested until the next posting date. By the time of today’s hearing, the prosecution states that the petitioner surrendered and was interrogated, and that no further custodial interrogation is required; if arrest is contemplated, the petitioner could be released on bail with stringent conditions. The court reiterates the primacy of bail as a general rule with custody as the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other decisions, and emphasizes that personal liberty is a fundamental value. It holds that the bail application should be allowed, with specific directions: the petitioner must appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, release on bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; further conditions include cooperation, travel restrictions, and non-commission of similar offenses. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez, and Siddharth v. UP to reinforce the applicable principles and clarifies that breach may lead to cancellation of bail. The order ultimately grants bail subject to these terms and states that the observations are confined to the bail application.
This High Court of Kerala revision petition concerns discharge in a criminal case for electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Asharaf, the accused in SC No. 568/2012, challenged the discharge order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kozhikode, in C.M.P.2088/2013, arguing that the police had no power to investigate and file a final report under the Act, and that amendments to Section 151 of the Act (effective 15.06.2007) are not retrospective. The facts trace to an inspection on 23.09.2005 revealing electricity theft at a KTM establishment, leading to a police complaint and Crime No.302/2005. The final report was filed in 2012 before the Sessions Court. The petitioner asserts the FIR and investigation are invalid; the prosecution contends the 2007 amendment empowers cognizance upon a police report and that police investigation can proceed under the general CrPC for offences under the Electricity Act. The State and KSEB rely on Vishal Agarwal v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (2014(1) KHC 390) to argue no fetter on police, overruling earlier Kerala High Court positions and endorsing police-led investigation and final reporting. The court upholds the Apex Court’s view, finds no retrospective void in the amendment, and dismisses the revision petition, allowing the discharge and related proceedings to stand as valid under CrPC.
CRL.REV.PET NO.651 OF 2013 Ramachandran, the 2nd accused in Crime No. 294/1996 (Iritty Police Station) under sections 55(a) and 65 of the Abkari Act, challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Thalassery, affirming conviction in Crl.A. No. 812/2003. The prosecution case alleged illicit liquor transport without permit on 12.09.1996; the trial court sentenced the 2nd accused to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 25,000 fine, with others absconding and their cases split. The appellate court upheld the conviction. In the revision petition, the 2nd accused contends that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that illegality and irregularities were overlooked by both courts, particularly the lack of a forwarding note for the sample and questions about whether the sample reached the chemical examiner in tamper-proof condition. He relies on jurisprudence emphasizing that mere seizure is insufficient without proper chain-of-custody and tamper-proof handling of samples. The High Court reviews sections 55 and 65 and cites Unnikrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala, Prakasan and Another v. State of Kerala, Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, Joseph v. State of Kerala, and Majeedkutty v. The Excise Inspector to evaluate whether the evidence meets the standard of proof. Ultimately, the court finds the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt and sets aside the conviction, acquitting the 2nd accused, with ancillary reliefs including cancellation of bail and refund of any fine.
This writ petition challenges a debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's bank account No. 50200088659396 by the 6th respondent, HDFC Bank, following police requisitions. The petitioner, Muhammed Farzeen C K, contends that the freezing action is arbitrary and excessive, restricting his ability to operate his bank account beyond a narrow limit. The bank submits that the disputed amount is Rs. 2968.13 and defends the freeze as a police-mandated measure. The court cites Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) to frame directions: freezing should be confined to the amounts specified in police orders; banks must enable petitioners to transact beyond that limit; police must inform banks whether continued freezing is required and for how long, within a defined period; banks are to act in line with such information. The court also relies on the interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and onState of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to stress timely reporting of seizures. Directions include limiting the freeze to the specified amount, notifying the bank of continuance, lifting if no information is forthcoming within the timeline, and serving the judgment on the relevant officers. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.
