The bank has freezed the accounts of the petitioners on the instruction received through the portal. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the Union of India, he has not received any instruction from the Union of India. In the case of Kartick Yogeshwar Chatur (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Headstar Global Private Limited (supra) held that a police officer investigating a crime has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 107 of BNSS to seek attachment of any property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity or the commission of an offence. Subsequently, Courts will have to be adopted in terms of the order passed by the Magistrate. Support further clarified that while Section 106 speaks of seizure, Section 107 deals with attachment, forfeiture and restoration. Seizure under Section 106 can be carried out by a police officer and an ex post facto report submitted to the Magistrate. On the other hand, attachment under Section 107 can be effected only upon the orders of the Magistrate. The logic behind the distinction being that the purpose of seizure is more to secure the evidence during an investigation, whereas attachment is intended to secure the proceeds of crime by preventing its disposal and thus ensuring its availability for legal procedure such as forfeiture and distribution to the victim. Thus the judgment makes it clear that freezing account is not permissible under Section 106 of BNSS. {Para 7}

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

WPA 8453 of 2025

Xenixt Technologies Private Limited & Ors. Vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Dated: 06.05.2026.