Failure to forthwith report bank-account seizure to the Magistrate vitiates the freeze.

In brief

The question

Whether the police seizure or freezing of the petitioner’s bank account was vitiated by their failure to report it forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate

The court held

The Court allowed the criminal revision, reversed the Magistrate’s order refusing to defreeze the account, and allowed Crl.M.P. No. 467 of 2025.

It also directed

The freezing of the petitioner’s account was therefore set aside

01Facts

The petitioner, arrayed as A12 in Crime No. 83 of 2024, challenged the freezing of her bank account (No. 10056876024) at Pandiyan Grama Bank, Cholapuram Branch, in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 395, 457, 458, 414 and 120-B IPC.

¶ 3–9 · pp. 2–4, 6

The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, declined her application to defreeze the account in Crl.M.P. No. 467 of 2025.

¶ 3–9 · pp. 2–4, 6

The petitioner contended that the police had not reported the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate; the trial court had noted that no such report was made, and the Additional Public Prosecutor conceded the failure

¶ 3–9 · pp. 2–4, 6

02Issues

i.Whether the police seizure or freezing of the petitioner’s bank account was vitiated by their failure to report it forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate

¶ 10, 13–16 · pp. 4, 6–7

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the trial court’s refusal to defreeze the account reversed

¶ 10, 17 · p. 4, 7

03Law Applied

Section 106(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 102(3) CrPC), requires a police officer who seizes property to report the seizure forthwith to the Magistrate having jurisdiction

¶ 11 · pp. 4–5

In State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685, the Supreme Court held that a bank account is “property” for the purposes of Section 102 CrPC and may be seized or its operation prohibited where it has a direct link to the offence under investigation

¶ 12 · p. 5

Relying on Praveen Kumar v. State by Inspector of Police, Crl. O.P. No. 4645 of 2021 (18 March 2021), and the authorities cited there, the Court stated that non-compliance with the requirement to report the seizure forthwith vitiates the freezing of a bank account

¶ 15–16 · pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102 Section 503 Section 504

04Reasoning

The Court treated the bank account as property capable of seizure under Section 106 BNSS, but held that the statutory reporting requirement applied to the police action.

¶ 11–16 · pp. 4–7

The seizure had not been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate, a fact noted by the trial court and conceded by the prosecution.

¶ 11–16 · pp. 4–7

Applying the principle that failure to report forthwith vitiates the freezing, the Court found the continued restraint on the account unsustainable

¶ 11–16 · pp. 4–7