Bombay High Court: In a case wherein the issue was whether an Investigating Agency (‘IA’) has the power to debit freeze a bank account under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the Division Bench of Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., quashed and set aside the orders passed by the IA and held that debit freezing of accounts is not permissible under Section 106, however, it can be done in terms of Section 107 BNSS, and that the banks should act in terms of the Citizen Financial Cyber Frauds Reporting and Management System (‘Management System’).
A cyber fraud occurred, and it was alleged that part of the amount of the fraud was credited into the petitioners’ bank accounts due to which their accounts were debit freezed under Section 106 BNSS upon the orders passed by the IA.
The Court noted that in some cases, the IA issued communications to banks directing them to freeze accounts, while in others, the banks acted on their own without any such communication. The Court referred to Headstar Global (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546, wherein the Kerala High Court considered State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685, M.T. Enrica Lexie v. Doramma, (2012) 6 SCC 760, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, (2024) 7 SCC 23, and held that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) does not contain any provision for seizure or attachment of the proceeds of crime, except under Chapter VII-A dealing with reciprocal arrangements with other countries. The lacuna that occurred in Section 102 CrPC has been cured by keeping Section 106 BNSS, which is akin to Section 102 CrPC, and by adding Section 107 BNSS.
Further, in Headstar Global (supra) it was held that a police officer investigating a crime must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 107 BNSS to seek attachment of any property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from a criminal activity and proceed as directed by the Magistrate. It was also clarified that while Section 106 speaks of seizure, Section 107 deals with attachment, forfeiture, and restoration. A seizure under Section 106 can be carried out by a police officer, and an ex post facto report can be submitted to the Magistrate, but an attachment under Section 107 can be effected only upon the Magistrate’s order, as the purpose of seizure is more to secure evidence during investigation, whereas, an attachment is intended to secure proceeds of crime by preventing its disposal and, thus, ensuring its availability for legal procedure such as forfeiture and distribution to the victims.
The Court noted FAQ 21 of the Management System, which clarifies that banks or other intermediaries are empowered only to place the disputed amount under lien and are not authorised to impose a debit freeze on accounts. Nevertheless, in the present case, certain banks, acting upon communications received from the IA, which did not even direct debit freezing, have proceeded to freeze the bank accounts, thereby causing disruption and losses to the day-to-day financial affairs of the account holders. The Court also clarified that the IA could proceed under Section 107 BNSS to debit freeze or attach a bank account, and that the banks should act in terms of the Management System, unless there is a specific order of debit freezing an account by a competent authority.
The Court, while concluding that an IA has no power to attach or debit freeze an account under Section 106 BNSS, quashed and set aside the orders passed by the IA directing the debit freeze. The Court also permitted the petitioners to seek compensation, if desired, by filing appropriate proceedings.
[Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778, decided on 20-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mahendra Limaye, Counsel.
For the Respondents: S.A. Chaudhari, M. Lalsare, S.G. Karmarkar, R.S. Suryawanshi, P.G. Mewar, V.A. Patait, A. Sambaray, K.N. Lad, K.A. Gowardipe, Counsels.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Sir,
In many of the cases accounts were lien marked by cyber authorities 7, 8,9,10 layer etc. Wherein most of the cases beneficiaries are innocents. During this digital era,how one can ask for digital payment.
In most of the cases complaint is, by saying “I have invested because the X person said of higher returns etc. In this case this the totally negligence of the investor, how it can be cyber fraud. He knows the person who asked him to invest. By asking OTP, swaping SIM digital arrests can be considered cyber fraud. But investing for higher returns by their own can’t be considered as cyber fraud and can’t be attached or lien marked third parties. Kindly guide