1. Petitioner sought to defreeze a bank account seized by police during a criminal investigation, which was initially declined by the trial court. (Para 03 , 05 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 105822
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Murugesan, J
Mohan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
CRL RC(MD) No. 1112 of 2025
Important Points
The mandatory requirement for police to report the seizure of property, including bank accounts, forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate under S.106 BNSS (S.102 CrPC) must be complied with; failure to do so vitiates the freezing of the account.
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure - Seizure of Property - Freezing of Bank Accounts - Requirement to report seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate under S.106 BNSS / S.102 CrPC is a mandatory mandate. (Para 11)
(B) Legal Consequence of Non-Compliance - Failure by the police to report the seizure of a bank account to the Magistrate vitiates the freezing process, rendering the seizure illegal and necessitating the defreezing of the account. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the failure of the respondent police to report the seizure of the revision petitioner's bank account forthwith to the jurisdictional magistrate vitiates the freezing of the said account.
(B) Legal Consequence of Non-Compliance - Failure by the police to report the seizure of a bank account to the Magistrate vitiates the freezing process, rendering the seizure illegal and necessitating the defreezing of the account. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the failure of the respondent police to report the seizure of the revision petitioner's bank account forthwith to the jurisdictional magistrate vitiates the freezing of the said account.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Raja
For the Respondents: D. Venkatesh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Raja
For the Respondents: D. Venkatesh
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued seizure was illegal for lack of notice and failure to report to the Magistrate, while the respondent conceded the procedural lapse rendered the seizure unsustainable. (Para 08 , 09 )
3. The court analyzed the mandatory statutory requirement under the relevant Code to report the seizure of property to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith to justify continued retention. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 )
4. Failure by police to report seizure of a bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith renders the freezing order illegal and vitiates the seizure. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. The revision is allowed, the trial court's order declining to defreeze is reversed, and the request to defreeze the bank account is granted. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Does a bank account fall within the definition of property subject to seizure by police?
Yes, a bank account of an accused or their relative is considered property within the meaning of the relevant procedural law, allowing police to prohibit operation if linked to an offence. (Para 12 )
7. What is the legal consequence of failing to report a property seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate?
The failure to report a property seizure to the Magistrate forthwith as mandated by law is a fatal lapse that vitiates the act of freezing the bank account. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 )
ORDER
Heard and admitted.
02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing on 06.10.2026.
03. Challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl MP No.465/2025 (in Cr No.83/2024 on the file of Rajapalayam South Police Station), declining to defreeze his bank account (10056874594) maintained in Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (TNGB), Cholapuram Branch, the revision petitioner/petitioner/A9 has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.
04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.
05. Prefatory facts are that for the offences under S.395, S.457, S.458, S.414 and S.120 (B) IPC, a criminal case has been registered on the file of Rajapalayam South Police Station in Cr No.83/2024 where the revision petitioner is A9, that the revision petitioner has two bank accounts, one (10056874594), maintained in Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (TNGB), Cholapuram Branch, and the other (089100710400370), maintained in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank (TMB), Rajapalayam Branch, that the respondent police has frozen those two bank accounts of the revision petitioner without any notice, that the revision petitioner filed an application in Crl MP No.465/2025 on the file of the trial court with a prayer to defreeze those frozen bank accounts and that the trial court has passed an order in Crl MP No.465/2025 declining to defreeze his bank account (10056874594) maintained in Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (TNGB), Cholapuram Branch, and directing to defreeze his bank account (089100710400370), maintained in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank (TMB), Rajapalayam Branch.
06. Challenging such order of the trial court declining to defreeze her bank account (10056874594) maintained in Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (TNGB), Cholapuram Branch, the revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision.
07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that when the bank accounts of the revision petitioner have been seized/frozen by the respondent police without any notice to the revision petitioner, and when such seizure of the bank accounts has not been reported forthwith to the jurisdictional magistrate, the seizure of such bank accounts is illegal, that therefore, the order of the trial court declining to defreeze the bank account (10056874594) of the revision petitioner maintained in Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (TNGB), Cholapuram Branch, is not sustainable.
09. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the revision respondent would fairly concede that the failure to report forthwith the seizure of the bank accounts to the jurisdictional magistrate is fatal to the case of the revision respondent.
10. Point for determination is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get an order allowing this criminal revision and reversing the order of the trial court in Crl MP No.465/2025 declining to defreeze the bank account (10056874594) of the revision petitioner maintained in Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (TNGB), Cholapuram Branch?
11. At the very outset, this court would like to refer to S.106 BNSS/ S.102 CrPC which would read as under:
106. Power of police officer to seize certain property.(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it
