Calcutta High Court declines to quash BNS organised-crime FIR amid seizure of ₹28.53 crore cash and gold

The petitioner challenged the propriety of Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case No. 267 of 2026, registered on 30 July 2026, principally contending that the FIR was based on a seizure made on 29 July 2026 without any prior complaint and that Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) had been improperly invoked.

The petitioner further disputed the seizure or attachment of immovable properties and relied on Nevada Properties Private Limited through its Directors v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 20 SCC 119, in relation to the scope of seizure powers under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The seizure included gold bars, cash amounting to Rs. 28,53,47,000/-, and other articles recovered from cupboards at the residence of Md. Minar Mondal; the investigation also concerned suspected proceeds of crime and alleged irregularities relating to Duplicate Carbon Receipts (“DCRs”) in the stone-mining sector.

The State relied on two charge-sheets filed on 4 August 2026 in two separate criminal cases—Charge Sheet Nos. 196/26 and 197/26—to justify the invocation of Section 111 BNS.

The Court noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and declined to examine the veracity of the allegations at that stage.

Whether the incorporation of Section 111 BNS in the impugned FIR was legally impermissible because the statutory requirement of more than one charge-sheet followed by cognizance within the preceding ten years had not been satisfied?

Whether the seizure of cash, gold, and movable or immovable properties rendered the criminal proceeding liable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in light of Section 106 BNSS and Nevada Properties?

Whether the High Court ought to interdict the ongoing investigation or grant protection against coercive steps while the allegations and evidence remained under investigation?

The Court applied Section 111 BNS, which criminalises organised crime and defines “continuing unlawful activity” as a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court within the preceding ten years and cognizance has been taken.

Section 111 also separately includes economic offences within the statutory framework of organised crime.

The Court considered the State’s reliance on two charge-sheets filed in separate criminal prosecutions as relevant to the invocation of Section 111 BNS.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on Section 106 BNSS and Nevada Properties Private Limited through its Directors v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 20 SCC 119, concerning seizure of property.

In relation to interference with investigation, the Court relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, which holds that quashing or interim restraint of criminal investigation under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, and that accused persons should ordinarily seek anticipatory bail before the competent court.

The Court treated the investigation as being at an early stage and therefore declined to assess the truth or sufficiency of the allegations arising from the large-scale seizure and suspected proceeds of crime.

On the specific challenge to Section 111 BNS, it noted that two charge-sheets had been filed in two other criminal cases and considered them sufficient, at the stage of investigation, to support the police authorities’ decision to invoke Section 111, particularly in view of the magnitude and nature of the alleged economic offences.

The Court did not accept the petitioner’s contention that invocation of Section 111 was premature or impermissible.

Although the petitioner relied on Nevada Properties to challenge seizure of immovable property, the Court did not finally adjudicate the legality of each seizure; instead, it held that the existence of seized assets and ongoing investigation did not justify writ interference at that stage.

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court held that no routine order restraining arrest, coercive action, or investigation should be passed when the facts remained undeveloped and the allegations were grave.

The petitioner’s departure from India was also noted as a circumstance that did not inspire the Court’s confidence.

The writ petition was dismissed.

The Court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS before the appropriate forum and did not grant any protection against coercive action.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to take such further steps as may be available in law.