Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR,, SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI
Ashish Rawat – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
What is the scope of property under Section 106 BNSS: whether it includes entire bank accounts or only the suspected amount? What is the legality of freezing bank accounts by police under Section 106 BNSS without prior notice to the account holder or judge, and what post-seizure reporting is required? How do Sections 106 and 107 BNSS operate in relation to seizure and attachment, and what are the jurisdictional and procedural requirements when funds are located across multiple states?
Key Points: - The court holds that bank accounts are "property" and that seizure under Section 106 BNSS is limited to the amount suspected to be stolen or linked to an offence, not the entire balance (!) . - Prior notice to the account holder before seizure is not required; post-seizure intimation to the magistrate is mandatory and banks must inform the account holder after seizure (!) (!) . - Section 106 (seizure) and Section 107 (attachment) operate at distinct stages: seizure is interim, for investigation; attachment is a judicial action following show-cause and order by a magistrate (!) (!) (!) . - Jurisdictional clarity: seizure to be reported to the magistrate having jurisdiction where the seizure occurs; jurisdiction is tied to the place of seizure, not solely where transactions occur (!) . - The judgment endorses adherence to SOPs and clarifies that innocent account holders should be protected; banks must restore operations for the portion not under investigation (!) (!) . - The court directs proportionate lien on the specific amount involved, and de-freezing or restoration of accounts where appropriate, with final outcomes subject to magistrate orders (!) (!) (!) . - Distinction from prior Kerala/Bombay decisions: in cases involving cybercrime, 106 permits seizure of a portion, not entire account; 107 required for attachment upon magistrate order (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fact of account freezing due to suspicious transactions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the legality of account freezing. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. clarification on procedural requirements for account freezing. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. court's reasoning on law applicable to account freezing and its limitations. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 5. conclusion and directions for ensuring compliance with legal protocols. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 59) |
Judgment :
1. Heard Shri Shamasul Eslam, learned counsel for the petitioner in leading petition, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 648 of 2026, Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 665 of 2026, Shri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 889 of 2026 & Writ -C No. 1118 of 2026, Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 1768 of 2026, Shri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ -C No. 2577 of 2026, Shri Vid
Police can freeze bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS without prior notice, but only the amounts suspected of being linked to crimes, not entire balances; account holders must be informed post-seizu....
The court established that freezing a bank account in a cyber crime investigation must specify the amount involved and comply with procedural requirements; otherwise, such an action is illegal.
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C and the need for sufficient evidence to support the freezing of a bank acco....
The freezing of a business account requires identification of the tainted amount to ensure proportionality, and blanket freezes violate constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.
Freezing an entire bank account without evidence linking the account holder to a crime violates the right to livelihood; only specific amounts should be frozen with proper justification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of freezing bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of this provision in the context of the case.
The court established that a bank account can be frozen under suspicion of criminal activity, and failure to report the freeze to the Magistrate does not invalidate the action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
