Introduction
The police have the authority to seize or freeze bank accounts during criminal investigations, as outlined in Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). However, this power is not absolute or indefinite. The BNSS requires that any seizure must be immediately reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate; if this does not happen, the action loses its legal basis.
This requirement is reinforced by Section 107 of the BNSS, which puts coercive police actions under judicial supervision. The legislation clearly aims to prevent arbitrary police actions, protect property rights, and ensure that banks do not act solely on executive orders without judicial support.
Together, Sections 106 and 107 create a framework that respects both the need for investigation and the necessity of judicial oversight.
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 106 of the BNSS allows the police to seize property that may be stolen or is found in circumstances that suggest a crime may have occurred. The law clearly states that any seizure must be reported right away to the relevant Magistrate.
If the seized property is movable and can be easily transported, it must be presented in court. If the property is not easily movable, such as money in bank accounts or digital assets, the police can give custody of it to someone else, provided that person signs a bond promising to produce the property when ordered by the court.
Notably, Section 106 broadens the definition of “property” to include bank accounts, financial assets, and digital property. This change formalizes previous judicial interpretations under Section 102 of the former Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”).
Comparison between Section 102 CrPC And Section 106 BNSS
Section 106 of the BNSS replaces Section 102 of the CrPC while keeping its main investigative function. Both sections allow the police to seize property that is suspected of being linked to a crime.
However, Section 106 updates the provision by:
* Expanding the definition of “property” to cover digital and financial assets.
* Strengthening procedural protections by linking them more clearly to judicial oversight under Section 107.
Thus, while the police powers of seizure remain primarily investigative and temporary, their continuation is clearly subject to judicial control.
Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 107 of the BNSS establishes judicial supervision over property seized under Section 106. It requires the Investigating Officer to follow the Magistrate’s directions about custody, whether to continue the freeze, dispose of the property, or return it.
For property that is perishable or not needed for long-term holding, the Magistrate can order it to be sold or disposed of. The provision also allows the court to issue temporary custody orders for property that is still under litigation, including releasing it to the rightful owner if they sign a bond.
Section 107 makes sure that seized property is not held indefinitely, helping to protect its value and the rights of individuals.
The Statutory Bridge between Sections 106 And 107 BNSS
The connection between Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS reflects a thoughtful design that moves urgent police action into a framework of judicial oversight.
* Section 106 allows police to seize property quickly during investigations.
* Section 107 ensures that this seizure is reviewed, confirmed, changed, or ended by a Magistrate.
While Section 106 permits immediate action, its legal grounding relies on Section 107. Without judicial confirmation, an ongoing seizure could be challenged as arbitrary, excessive, and in violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
Therefore, Section 106 authorizes seizure, while Section 107 legitimizes and regulates it.
Role of Banks
Banks must act quickly when they receive seizure or freeze instructions from law enforcement. However, banks do not have investigative powers and cannot continue to follow executive instructions indefinitely.
Banks are legally justified—and required—to seek judicial approval for a freeze to be maintained. If the court does not approve this under Section 107 of the BNSS, following police orders could put banks at risk of legal or regulatory issues.
Judicial confirmation thus safeguards both the account holder and the bank.
Case Law Analysis
i) Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546)
The Kerala High Court made a clear distinction between the police’s power to seize and the court’s authority regarding continuation or attachment. The Court ruled that while the police can temporarily freeze a bank account under Section 106 BNSS, they cannot maintain it indefinitely without consulting the Magistrate under Section 107.
The Court pointed out that seizure under Section 106 is for investigative purposes and temporary, while continuation under Section 107 involves judicial review and affects rights, which relates to Article 300A. The debit freeze was revoked due to a lack of judicial approval.
ii) Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778)
The Bombay High Court confirmed that Section 106 BNSS grants only temporary seizure authority, not a power of attachment or long-term freezing. Citing *Headstar Global*, the Court stated that any ongoing restrictions on a bank account must be sanctioned by the Magistrate under Section 107 BNSS.
iii) Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Del 1055)
The Delhi High Court criticized the blanket freezing of entire bank accounts when the disputed transaction was minor. The Court stated that freezing should be proportional, reasoned, and limited to the disputed amount, warning that excessive freezes could violate Article 21 by impacting business and livelihoods.
iv) Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner of Police (1987 SCC OnLine Del 221)
The Court ruled that freezing bank accounts without promptly notifying the Magistrate and obtaining directions makes the action illegal. Judicial approval is mandatory, not optional—a principle now clearly stated in the BNSS framework.
Conclusion
Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, together create a balanced system governing the seizure of bank accounts. While Section 106 allows the police to act quickly to secure suspected criminal proceeds, this power is inherently temporary and executive.
Section 107 ensures that such actions are subject to judicial review, proportionality, and compliance with the Constitution. A police-initiated seizure can work as an emergency measure, but its legality and continuation rely entirely on prompt judicial approval.
Thus, the legal framework reaffirms a key principle of criminal law: urgent actions by law enforcement must always be reviewed by the judiciary when they involve property and civil rights.
