Prior Notice by Police Not Necessary for Property Attachment

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, in the case of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India & 6 Others (2026), held that police are not required to serve prior notice before seizing or attaching property under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court also clarified that a bank account cannot be frozen in its entirety — only the amount suspected to be connected with the offence may be held in lien.

What was the Background of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India & 6 Others (2026) Case? 

• Multiple petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court seeking de-freezing of their bank accounts while investigations into cyber offences concerning those accounts were pending. 
• Several petitioners contended that their accounts had been frozen without any prior notice, or only on the basis of an oral instruction. 
• The Court framed the following questions for determination:  
  • Whether 'property' under Section 106 BNSS includes the entire bank account of the person, or only the amount alleged to be stolen or suspected to be connected with an offence. 
  • Whether bank accounts can be frozen under Section 106 BNSS without prior intimation to the account holder. 
  • Whether Sections 106 and 107 of BNSS operate independently and distinctly from each other.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

No Prior Notice Required Under Section 106: 

• Section 106 BNSS confers direct power on the police to seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence. 
• There is no requirement in the statutory scheme for prior notice to the owner or for obtaining a court order before seizure — unlike Section 107, which mandates a show cause notice from the Magistrate. 
• Any contrary interpretation would curtail the powers of the police and defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to preserve property and prevent its further misuse, especially in cyber crime cases where delay may defeat the ends of justice. 

Restriction on Freezing Entire Bank Account: 

• The Court held that the proviso to Section 106 confines seizure only to property suspected to be stolen or linked to the offence. 
• Accordingly, the entire bank account cannot be seized and its full operation cannot be stopped — only the amount connected to the crime may be held in lien. 

Post-Seizure Intimation to Account Holders: 

• While prior notice is not mandated, the Court held that banks shall inform account holders of the freezing of their accounts after seizure, upon instructions from the investigating agency. 
• As consumers of the bank, account holders are entitled to be informed so as to protect themselves from hardships and to seek appropriate legal recourse. 

Sections 106 and 107 Operate Independently: 

• Section 106 is designed for immediate action by the police during investigation. 
• Section 107 is precautionary in nature and involves an elaborate procedure — prior permission from the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, an application before the Magistrate, and a show cause notice to the person whose property is sought to be attached. 
• Both provisions operate at different stages and are independent of each other; invocation of one does not automatically attract the other.

What is Section 106 of BNSS? 

Section 106 BNSS – Power of Police Officer to Seize Certain Property: 

• This Section Corresponds to Section 102 CrPC.  
• Any police officer may seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. 
• If the seizing officer is subordinate to the Station House Officer, he must forthwith report the seizure to that officer. 
• The seizing officer must also report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate without delay. 
• Where the seized property cannot be conveniently transported to court, or custody is difficult, or continued police custody is unnecessary, the officer may hand it over to any person on a bond undertaking to produce it before the court as required. 
• Where seized property is subject to speedy decay, the owner is unknown or absent, and its value is below ₹500, it may be auctioned under orders of the Superintendent of Police; Sections 503 and 504 BNSS apply to the net proceeds.

What is Section 107 of BNSS? 

Section 107 BNSS – Attachment, Forfeiture or Restoration of Property  

(Introduced as a new provision) 

• Where an investigating police officer has reason to believe that any property is derived, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity, he may — with prior approval of the SP or CP — apply to the competent Court or Magistrate for attachment of such property. 
• The Court or Magistrate, if satisfied that the property is proceeds of crime, issues a show cause notice to the concerned person, requiring him to show cause within 14 days why attachment should not be ordered. 
• Where the property is held by a third party on behalf of the noticee, a copy of the notice must also be served on that third party. 
• After considering the reply and giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Court or Magistrate may pass an attachment order in respect of properties found to be proceeds of crime; if the noticee fails to appear or respond within 14 days, an ex parte order may be passed. 
• Where the Court or Magistrate is of the opinion that issuing notice would defeat the purpose of attachment, it may pass an interim ex parte attachment order; such order remains in force until a final order is passed under sub-section (6). 
• If the attached property is confirmed as proceeds of crime, the Court or Magistrate directs the District Magistrate to distribute such proceeds rateably among the persons affected by the crime. 
• The District Magistrate must effect such distribution — personally or through a subordinate — within 60 days of receiving the order. 
• If no claimants exist, no claimant is ascertainable, or a surplus remains after satisfying claimants, the proceeds stand forfeited to the Government.