Section 106 BNSS — No Prior Notice Required for Police Seizure, Says Allahabad HC

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

In Ashish Rawat v. Union of India and 6 Others (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 210), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi addressed a recurring question in cyber fraud investigations: must police serve prior notice before freezing a bank account or seizing property suspected of being connected to an offence under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)?

The order was delivered on 12 April 2026.

Background

The petitioners’ bank accounts had been frozen in connection with an ongoing cyber offence investigation. They alleged that the freezing was done either without any notice or merely through oral intimation, and sought relief on the ground that the absence of prior written notice violated principles of natural justice.

Issues Considered

Whether Section 106 BNSS requires the investigating officer to serve advance notice before seizing property or freezing an account.
How Section 106 differs from Section 107 BNSS, which deals with magistrate-ordered attachment of property.
Whether the police can freeze the entire balance in a bank account, or only amounts connected to the alleged offence.

Holdings

1. No statutory requirement of prior notice under Section 106. The Bench held that Section 106 BNSS, which empowers the police to seize any property suspected to have been stolen or used in the commission of an offence, does not contemplate a pre-seizure notice. The provision is intended to enable immediate action during investigation, and reading in a prior-notice requirement would defeat its purpose.

2. Sections 106 and 107 operate at different stages. The Court drew a clear distinction between the two provisions. Section 107 BNSS, which deals with attachment of proceeds of crime by order of a Magistrate, expressly requires a show-cause notice to the person concerned. Section 106, by contrast, empowers the investigating officer and operates at an earlier, investigative stage. The safeguards under the two sections are therefore different and independent of each other.

3. Freezing must be limited to tainted amounts. Importantly, the Court held that the entire balance of a bank account cannot be frozen. Only such sums as are reasonably linked to the alleged offence may be seized. This places a proportionality check on the exercise of the power.

4. Post-seizure intimation required. Although prior notice is not mandatory, the Court observed that once an account is frozen, the bank is obliged to inform the account holder of the action, so that the affected person can seek appropriate remedies.

Provisions Discussed

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — police power to seize property suspected of being connected with an offence.
Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — attachment, forfeiture or restoration of property, by order of the Magistrate.

Precedents Referred To

State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy — bank accounts constitute “property” capable of being seized during investigation under the corresponding CrPC provision.
State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey — followed on the same point.

Takeaway

Section 106 BNSS, successor to Section 102 CrPC, permits police to freeze accounts in cyber fraud investigations without prior notice, but subject to two working limits: the freeze is confined to amounts reasonably linked to the offence, and the bank must intimate the account holder post-seizure so that remedies can be pursued.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.