Bombay HC: Police Cannot Seize Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC Without Direct Link To Offence

At this stage, the object and purpose of the provisions contained in section 102 of the Code, deserve to be revisited. It is essentially a tool for investigation and collection of evidence to sustain the charge against the accused. Section 102 is neither intended to confer, nor a repository of, the power to seize the property for the purpose of its delivery to the person / victim whom the IO consider to be rightful owner. In the absence of a direct link between the seized property and the commission of the offences, to concede the power to the investigating agency to seize the property would amount to allowing the investigating agency to trench upon adjudicatory province and do compensatory justice. { Para 37}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2024

Geeta Kampani  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 7 MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:21940

Print Page

Calcutta HC: Mere Complaint Through MHA Cybercrime Portal Cannot Justify Freezing Of Bank Accounts

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.

Print Page

What are specialized Injunction orders which are issued by Indian courts?

 Indian courts recognize several specialized injunctions beyond the standard temporary, perpetual, mandatory, and prohibitory types, often adapted for IP, commercial, and digital disputes under CPC Order XXXIX and Specific Relief Act provisions.

IP and Evidence Preservation

1) Anton Piller Order (Search and Seizure):

Authorizes the plaintiff to enter the defendant's premises, search for, and seize infringing goods or evidence (e.g., counterfeit products, pirated copies) to prevent destruction, typically in trademark/copyright cases. Known as "John Doe" or "Ashok Kumar" order in India when defendants are unidentified; first issued by Delhi HC in Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (2002).

Print Page