On 29th of October a bench of Hon’ble J. Ajit Kumar and Hon’ble J. Swarupama Chaturvedi has ruled out that that a police officer is entitled to seize property of accused persons during investigation by passing orders under section 106 BNSS (Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The police has also been obliged to report such seizure to concerned magistrate.
Facts in brief-
Petitioner’s Submission-
The petitioner who is a Shikshamitra (Teacher) at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sakhadha, Block Mooratganj, District Kaushambi. The salary of the petitioner is credited into her savings account maintained with Bank of Baroda, Imamganj Branch, Mooratganj. On 01.09.2022 an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was credited to the said account from Account maintained with Federal Bank, Puthiyara Branch (Gujarat). Subsequently, the petitioner’s account was freezed by the respondent Bank. Upon inquiry it appeared that the petitioner was orally informed by the officials of the respondent Bank that the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- had been transferred by one Mustaq Ali and that the Anand Cyber Crime Branch, Gujarat Police, had directed the Bank to block the petitioner’s account in connection with the aforesaid transaction. The petitioner had gave applications to the respondent bank stating that she neither knew the person who has transferred the amount, nor had any concern with the alleged transaction. She requested the bank to open the account of the petitioner. She also approached the authorities in the bank and requested for the de-freezing of the account.
Respondent’s Submission-
The bank’s point was that the account of the petitioner was freezed on instruction of the Cyber Crime Department, Anand, Gujarat. The Bank cannot de-freeze the account without prior approval of the Cyber Crime Department, or the order of the competent court, as the matter is still under investigation and the account in question is under investigation.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, opposes the reliefs sought in the writ petition and submits that where a bank has freezed an account in connection with an ongoing investigation, the primary consideration is whether the officer directing such freezing of account has acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya* Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). He has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372 where it was held by the Supreme Court that if the officer concerned has followed the procedure prescribed in Section 102 Cr.P.C. (present Section 106 BNSS) then freezing of the account by the Bank is legally justified. They Further submitted that the transaction aforementioned is suspicious in the eyes of investigative agency.
Relief Sought-
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of freezing of the bank account of petitioner by the respondent bank with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent bank (Respondent no. 5) to defreeze the Saving Account No. 433901000***** of Bank of Baroda, Branch Imamganj, Mooratganj, District-Kaushambi and to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount from her aforesaid account.
Finding of the Court-
In the light of Judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372, the court ruled out that, in the event police comes to conclude that during investigation a bank account is to be freezed for suspicious transaction, it can always direct the bank to freeze such bank account. And of course, such freezing of the account shall depend upon the outcome of investigation. The affected party can of course, seek remedy from the Magistrate concerned after the investigation is concluded and if chargesheet is filed, to limit freezing of account to the extent of money involved.
The Court further added that from a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that a police officer is entitled to seize property of accused persons during investigation by passing orders and the only duty is to report such seizure to Magistrate concerned. There is no obligation cast upon police to seek prior order from Magistrate for seizure of property.
[Marufa Begum vs. Union Of India And 5 Others; WRIT- C No.- 37053 of 2025]
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anoop Kumar Sharma, Vikas Rastogi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anadi Krishna Narayana, C.S.C.