Kerala High Court Upholds Direction To Implead Local SHO In Bank Account Defreezing Petitions

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment in appeals arising out of orders of the Single Bench dated 10 December 2025 and 15 December 2025.

The Single Bench in its order dated 10 December ordered mandatory impleadment of Local Station House Officer (SHO) in plea seeking de-freezing of accounts noting the increasing misuse of jurisdiction by false and forged cases.

In the order dated 15 December 2025, the Single Bench denied permission for Advocate Yeswanth Shenoy to appear before the Court on oral instructions from the Counsel for the Petitioners in the case. These orders were challenged in the appeal.

It was argued that the order of the Single Judge directing the local SHO to be made party in the de-freezing case was in contrary to the decision in Shaji P R v State of Kerala [2006 KHC 819] which held that no bail applications can be rejected by the office at the threshold merely on the ground that it was not accompanied by an affidavit.

The Court noted that the Single Judge issued direction as to impleadment SHO, considering the large number of cases involving cyber fraud with respect to bank accounts.

The Court also noted several concerning trends in these cases, including instances where many petitions lacked basic details about the alleged transactions or the petitioner's business, instances where accounts showed large transactions worth crores shortly after being opened, inconsistent with information provided to banks, etc.

The Single Judge has also expressed concern about AI-generation writ petitions being filed without basis facts, complicating the judicial scrutiny.

The Court thus noted that the Single Bench was justified in directing to implead local SHO in de-freezing cases.

“The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is intended for better and smooth administration of justice, which is of paramount consideration, as opposed to the technical objection that has been raised. We are surprised that such submission has been made without considering that the presence of the said SHO is important for effective adjudication of petitions concerning cyber crimes. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order” Court held.

The Court also noted that in a Judicial Practice and Procedure proceeding, a similar direction was issued by the Division Bench where the Public Prosecutor was directed to ensure the SHO concerned to be impleaded in the matter regarding account defreezing. The Review Petition filed against this direction is pending before the Court.

However, the Bench partly allowed the appeal in relation to the December 15, 2025 order, which required the arguing counsel to file a separate vakalathnama.

The Court observed:

“ In view of Order III Rule 4(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 17 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under Section 34(1) of the Advocate's Act 1961 regarding the conditions of practice of Advocates, it is no longer obligatory or necessary for any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of a party by another pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party to file a separate vakalathnama.”

The writ appeal was thus disposed of with the modification in the order dated 15, December, while upholding the requirement of impleadment of Local SHO in Bank account defreezing cases.

Case Title: Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v The Federal Bank Ltd.

Case No: WA 260/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

Counsel for Appellant: Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P, Yeshwant Shenoy