Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has come into sharp focus because of its frequent misinterpretation and misuse, esp

Section 106 of BNSS – Power of Police to Seize Property

In recent times, Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has come into sharp focus because of its frequent misinterpretation and misuse, especially in cases involving seizure of property and freezing of bank accounts. 

Many people, including businesses and ordinary citizens, suddenly find their money or property seized in the name of investigation, often without clear legal backing. This has raised serious questions about the actual scope, purpose, and limits of Section 106.

The confusion mainly arises because Section 106 gives certain powers to the police, but those powers are not absolute. The section is meant to assist investigation by protecting evidence, not to punish people or cripple their livelihood. Courts across India have repeatedly stepped in to clarify what Section 106 allows and, more importantly, what it does not allow.

This article explains Section 106 BNSS in simple, clear, and practical language, covering its purpose, limits, duties of police, constitutional impact, and judicial interpretation, so that readers can clearly understand how this provision should be applied in law and in practice.

---

What Is Section 106 BNSS?

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 defines the power of a police officer to seize certain property during the course of a criminal investigation.

Under Section 106 BNSS:

A police officer may seize any property which is suspected to be stolen or which is found in circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of an offence, and such seizure must be reported to the Magistrate without delay.

In other words:

Section 106 BNSS means that the police can temporarily take control of property if they believe it is connected with a crime, mainly to preserve evidence.

This power is:

• Temporary

• Procedural

• Subject to court supervision

Very important for understanding the definition:

• It does not mean freezing bank accounts

• It does not mean attaching money

• It does not mean punishing the person

Those actions fall under Section 107 BNSS, not Section 106.

Section 106 BNSS empowers the police to seize suspected or stolen property for evidentiary purposes, subject to mandatory reporting to the Magistrate.

Exact Purpose of Section 106 BNSS

The exact purpose of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is to give the police a limited procedural power to temporarily take control of property that may be connected with a crime, only to help in investigation.

This section exists mainly to preserve evidence. It allows the police to seize property so that it is not destroyed, hidden, or tampered with during the investigation. Without this power, important evidence linked to an offence could be lost.

Another purpose of Section 106 is to secure stolen or suspicious property. When property is suspected to be stolen or found in circumstances suggesting an offence, the police can seize it to ensure it remains available for court proceedings.

Section 106 also ensures judicial supervision over police action. The law requires that every seizure must be reported to the Magistrate, which acts as a safeguard against misuse of power.

Most importantly, Section 106 is not meant to punish anyone. It does not authorise freezing of bank accounts, attachment of money, or disruption of business or livelihood. Those actions fall under Section 107 BNSS and require a court’s approval.

The exact purpose of Section 106 BNSS is to assist lawful investigation by protecting evidence, not to impose penalties or economic restrictions on individuals or businesses.

---

What Section 106 Is NOT Meant For

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is often misunderstood and misused. It is very important to clearly understand what this section is NOT meant for.

Section 106 is not meant to freeze or debit-block bank accounts. Freezing a bank account directly affects a person’s livelihood and business, and such power is not given to the police under this section.

It is also not meant for attaching money or property as “proceeds of crime”. Attachment is a serious action and can be done only under Section 107 BNSS, after approaching a Magistrate and following due process.

Section 106 is not meant to punish a person before trial. The police cannot use this section to indirectly penalise someone by stopping salaries, blocking business transactions, or causing financial hardship.

It is not meant for blanket or arbitrary action. The police cannot seize property merely on suspicion without relevance to evidence, nor can they act without reporting the seizure to the Magistrate.

Most importantly, Section 106 is not a shortcut to bypass judicial oversight. Any action affecting livelihood, business, or bank accounts must go through proper legal procedure and court approval.

Section 106 is for evidence protection, not for economic punishment or harassment of innocent people.

---

What Kind of Property Can Be Seized?

Under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the police are allowed to seize only limited types of property, and that too strictly for the purpose of investigation and evidence.

First, the police can seize property that is alleged or suspected to be stolen. This includes items like stolen mobile phones, jewellery, vehicles, or any goods taken unlawfully. The purpose is to recover the stolen property and preserve it for trial.

Second, the police may seize property found in circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of an offence. This usually means items directly connected with the crime, such as weapons, tools used to commit an offence, forged documents, fake currency, or electronic devices used in cyber crimes.

Third, Section 106 mainly applies to movable and physical property that can serve as evidence. Examples include:

• Mobile phones, laptops, hard drives

• Documents, files, and records

• Cash found during investigation

• Instruments used to commit an offence

However, it is very important to understand what cannot be seized under Section 106. The police cannot freeze or attach bank accounts, salary accounts, or business accounts under this section. Freezing an account is not considered seizure for evidence and requires a separate legal process under Section 107 BNSS, with the approval of a Magistrate.

Section 106 allows seizure of stolen or crime-related movable property only for evidentiary purposes, and it does not give the police the power to block someone’s money or livelihood.

---

Important Legal Duties of Police Under Section 106

Under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the police do not get free or unchecked power. The law clearly lays down important legal duties that the police must follow whenever they seize any property.

First, if the police officer who seizes the property is not the officer-in-charge of the police station, he must immediately report the seizure to the officer-in-charge. This ensures senior supervision and prevents misuse at the ground level.

Second, every seizure under Section 106 must be reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate without delay. This is a very important safeguard. It brings the seizure under judicial control and allows the court to examine whether the action was lawful and necessary.

Third, the police must ensure proper custody and safety of the seized property. If the property cannot be conveniently produced before the court or does not require continuous police custody, the police may hand it over to a responsible person after taking a bond to produce it whenever the court asks.

Fourth, the police must use this power only for investigative purposes. Seizure should be directly connected with evidence or suspicion of an offence. It cannot be used as a tool to harass, pressurise, or punish any person.

Section 106 allows seizure, but only with accountability, transparency, and court oversight. Any seizure done without following these duties becomes illegal and can be set aside by the court.

---

Custody of Seized Property

Under Section 106 BNSS, seizing property is only the first step. The law also clearly explains how the seized property must be kept and handled, so that there is no misuse or unnecessary hardship.

After seizure, the police are responsible for the safe custody of the property. They must ensure that the property is not damaged, lost, or misused while it is in police control. The property is kept only for the purpose of investigation and court proceedings.

If the seized property cannot be conveniently taken to court, or if there is difficulty in storing it, or if continued police custody is not necessary, the law allows the police to hand over the property to another person. This is done only after taking a bond or written undertaking from that person.

The person who receives custody must:

• Keep the property safely

• Produce it before the court whenever required

• Follow any further directions given by the court

This provision exists to avoid unnecessary burden on the police and to prevent damage or misuse of property.

Section 106 ensures that seized property is handled responsibly, kept only as long as needed, and always remains under the control and supervision of the court, not at the unchecked discretion of the police.

---

Judicial Interpretation of Section 106 BNSS

Courts have repeatedly interpreted Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in a very clear and consistent manner. The judiciary has emphasised that this section gives the police only a limited procedural power, and it cannot be stretched beyond its actual purpose.

Courts have held that Section 106 is meant only for seizure of property for evidentiary purposes. The power under this section is intended to help the police collect and preserve evidence during investigation. It is not meant to deprive a person of their money, livelihood, or business operations.

A very important judicial interpretation is that freezing or attaching bank accounts does not fall under Section 106. Courts have clearly said that bank account freezing is not “seizure for evidence”, but an action to secure alleged proceeds of crime. Such action can be taken only under Section 107 BNSS, and that too after obtaining an order from a Magistrate.

Below are the important case laws that explain and settle the legal position.

1. Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2025)

In this case, the Kerala High Court clearly explained the difference between seizure and attachment.

The Court held that:

• Section 106 BNSS allows only seizure of property for evidence

• Freezing or attaching bank accounts is not permitted under Section 106

• If money is suspected to be proceeds of crime, police must follow Section 107 BNSS

• Attachment can be done only after approaching a Magistrate

The Supreme Court later refused to interfere with this judgment, giving it strong legal value.

---

2. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India (2025)

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that:

• Investigating agencies have no power to debit-freeze bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS

• Any freezing or attachment must strictly follow Section 107 BNSS

• Banks may place a specific disputed amount on lien, but cannot freeze the entire account

The Court criticised the practice of mechanically freezing accounts based on police communications.

---

3. Neelkanth Pharma Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2025)

In this Delhi High Court judgment, the Court observed that:

• Freezing an entire bank account because of a small disputed amount is arbitrary

• Innocent businesses cannot be paralysed without proof of involvement

• Mere receipt of money does not establish guilt

The Court stressed that misuse of Section 106 leads to serious violation of livelihood and business rights.

---

4. Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited v. Union of India (2026)

In this case, the Delhi High Court again confirmed that:

• Section 106 BNSS does not permit debit freezing of bank accounts

• Police instructions without a Magistrate’s order are illegal

• Innocent account holders cannot be punished without any FIR or allegation

The Court ordered immediate defreezing of the bank accounts.

Courts have clearly said that Section 106 BNSS is not a weapon to freeze bank accounts or punish people. It is only a procedural tool to help investigation, and nothing more.

The judiciary has also stressed that mere suspicion or tracing of money flow is not enough. Just because money passed through an account does not automatically make the account holder guilty. Unless there is material showing knowing involvement or complicity, Section 106 cannot be used to justify harsh actions.

Another consistent view of the courts is that entire accounts cannot be frozen for small or identifiable disputed amounts. Blanket or mechanical actions have been described as arbitrary and disproportionate, especially when the account holder is not even an accused.

Courts have further observed that misuse of Section 106 directly affects fundamental rights, particularly:

• the right to carry on trade or business, and

• the right to livelihood.

Because of this impact, judicial supervision and strict compliance with procedure are mandatory.

In simple words, judicial interpretation has firmly settled that Section 106 BNSS is a narrow, evidence-related power. Any attempt to use it as a shortcut for attachment, punishment, or economic pressure has been consistently rejected by the courts.

---

Constitutional Angle

The misuse of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has a clear constitutional dimension, because any unlawful seizure or freezing of property directly affects fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Courts have repeatedly held that police powers under Section 106 must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional safeguards.

Firstly, wrongful action under Section 106 impacts Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to carry on any trade, business or profession. When bank accounts or business-related property are wrongly seized or frozen without authority of law, business operations come to a standstill. 

Salaries cannot be paid, transactions fail, and commercial goodwill is damaged. Courts have observed that such actions amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to conduct business.

Secondly, misuse of Section 106 also violates Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to livelihood and dignity. Freezing or seizing property without due process causes financial distress and deprives individuals of their means of survival. Courts have clearly stated that economic deprivation without following lawful procedure amounts to a violation of Article 21.

Further, the Constitution requires that any action affecting life or livelihood must follow procedure established by law. Using Section 106 to impose harsh economic consequences without approaching a Magistrate, without notice, and without giving an opportunity of hearing is considered arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Courts have also applied the principle of proportionality, holding that even during investigation, State action must be reasonable and balanced. Freezing entire accounts or seizing property disproportionate to the alleged offence is not permissible, especially when the person is not an accused.

In simple words, Section 106 BNSS cannot be interpreted or applied in a manner that overrides constitutional rights. Police power under this section must stop where fundamental rights begin, and any action taken in violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 will not survive judicial scrutiny.

---

Conclusion

In conclusion, Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is a limited and procedural provision, meant only to help the police seize property for evidentiary purposes during an investigation. It is not a source of unlimited power and cannot be used to punish individuals or businesses before any finding of guilt.

The consistent judicial view makes it clear that Section 106 does not authorise freezing or attachment of bank accounts. Such serious actions, which directly affect livelihood and business, can be taken only under Section 107 BNSS and strictly with the approval of a Magistrate. Any attempt to bypass this legal process has been held to be unlawful and arbitrary.

Courts have also emphasised that misuse of Section 106 leads to violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to trade and the right to livelihood under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Freezing accounts or seizing property without due process amounts to economic punishment without trial, which the law does not permit.

Therefore, Section 106 must be applied carefully, reasonably, and strictly within its legal limits. When used correctly, it supports fair investigation and justice. When misused, it becomes a tool of harassment and injustice. The clear message from the courts is that investigation must follow the law, and protection of citizens’ rights must always remain paramount.