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

Madras HC: Police cannot freeze an entire bank account; only quantum of money involved in financial fraud can be frozen, since it would amount to depriving the account holder of his/her right to livelihood

As far as the present case in hand, though the intimation fromthe Cyber Crime Bureau, Telangana, indicates that suspected money in the account of the petitioner is only a tune of Rs. 2,48,835/-, due to the blanket order to freeze the account, the fifth respondent Bank has freezed the account in its entirety. Therefore, the petitioner herein is unable to operate his account and deal with the money lying in his account. {Para 7}

8. Under the guise of investigation, order freezing the entire

account without quantifying the amount and period cannot be passed. Such order will be construed as violation of the fundamental rights of trade and business as well as violation of livelihood. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the fifth respondent to de-freeze the account and kept a lien over a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner herein is permitted to operate his account, subject to the condition that he shall ensure, the account shall always have a minimum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.P.No.25631 of 2024

Mohammed Saifullah Vs  Reserve Bank of India,

CORAM: DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

DATED :10.09.2024

Print Page

Whether investigating officer can attach bank account of a person accused of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act U/S 102 of CRPC?

 Be that as it may, on that account, it is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, the freezing of the account of the appellant cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the impugned order is also set aside leaving open to the respondent to take such recourse in law as may be permissible. 

Supreme Court

JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

RATAN BABULAL LATH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2021

6th September 2021

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 425

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to issue notice to account holder prior to freezing of bank Account?

As regards the procedure for issuing instructions to freeze the bank accounts, it is noticed that the same has been followed by giving intimation to the concerned Magistrate on 21st November, 2014 as required in terms of Section 102 of the Code. There is nothing in Section 102 which mandates giving of prior notice to the account holder before the seizure of his bank account. The Magistrate after noticing that the principle stated by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0213/2007 : (2008) Cri.L.J. 148 (Bom.) has been overruled in terms of the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar (supra), rightly negatived that contention. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has expounded that Section 102 does not require issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action attaching his bank account. In the case of Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/MH/0932/2011 : (2012) Cri.L.J. 520 (Bom.), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court once again considered the issue and rejected the argument that prior notice to the account holder was required to be given before seizure of his bank account. It also noted that the bank account need not be only of the Accused but it can be any account creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. The view so taken commends us.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of 2017 

Decided On: 15.12.2017

Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors.

Print Page

Whether bank account is a property which can be freezed during course of investigation?

Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure Under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be 'property' within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the Accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the Accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the Accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the Accused or any of his relations is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of 2017 

Decided On: 15.12.2017

Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation:(2018) 2 SCC 372

Print Page

Bombay HC: S.102 of CRPC does not require issuance of notice to accused prior to freezing his bank account

It is, therefore, clear that like any other property a bank account is freezable. Freezing the account is an act in investigation. Like any other act, it commands and behoves secrecy to preserve the evidence. It does not deprive any person of his liberty or his property. It is necessarily temporary i.e. till the merit of the case is decided. It clothes the Investigating Officers 

with the power to preserve a property suspected to have been used in the commission of the offence in any manner. The property, therefore, requires to be protected from dissemination, depletion or destruction by any mode. Consequently, under the guise of being given information about the said action, no accused, not even a third party, can overreach the law under the umbrella of a sublime provision meant to protect the innocent and preserve his property. It would indeed be absurd to suggest that a person must be told that his bank account, which is suspected of having been used in the commission of an offence by himself or even by another, is being frozen to allow him to have it closed or to have its proceeds withdrawn or transferred upon such notice.

19.The question before us, therefore, is stark in its framing. The word before or simultaneously in the question specifically requires us to consider whether before freezing the account or at the time of freezing the account a notice has to be issued upon the concerned person. Our answer can only be in the negative. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. does not require issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action of attaching (his) bank account.

Bombay High Court

Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011

Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, R. C. Chavan, R. S. Dalvi

Print Page