Power of Police Seize Property in West Bengal:

During a criminal investigation, police authorities are granted specific powers to secure material objects, trace funds, and preserve evidence. However, these powers are not absolute. One of the most common legal questions that individuals and businesses face is: Can a police officer seize any property during an investigation?

With the complete overhaul of India’s criminal jurisprudence through the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—which replaced the older Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)—the statutory landscape governing searches and seizures has dramatically evolved.

This updated article analyses the extent of a police officer’s power to seize property, incorporating the transition from Section 102 of the CrPC to Section 106 of the BNSS, along with landmark judgments up to 2026.

The Statutory Legal Framework: From Section 102 CrPC to Section 106 BNSS

Historically, the power of a police officer to seize property was derived from Section 102 of the CrPC. Under the current regime, this exact framework is governed by Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, titled “Power of police officer to seize certain property”.

The legal criteria under Section 106(1) BNSS state that any police officer may seize property under two explicit conditions:

1. If the property is alleged or suspected to have been stolen.
2. If the property is found under circumstances that create a suspicion of the commission of any offence.

Mandatory Procedural Safeguards

To prevent arbitrary executive action and the abuse of police power, the law mandates immediate oversight:

• Reporting to Seniors: If the seizing officer is subordinate to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a police station, they must immediately report the seizure to the OIC (Section 106(2) BNSS).
• Reporting to the Magistrate: Every police officer executing a seizure must forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction (Section 106(3) BNSS).
• Execution of a Bond: If the seized property cannot be easily transported to the court or lacks secure storage accommodation, the police may return it to the person entitled to its possession upon execution of a bond, binding them to produce the property before the court whenever required.

Purpose of Seizing Property During Investigation

Legally, a police officer can secure or freeze property under four primary grounds:

1. Safe Keeping: Protecting high-value, vulnerable, or disputed properties (such as cash, gold jewellery, or premium electronics) from theft, damage, or destruction during an active investigation.
2. Evidence Preservation: Securing tools, weapons, or electronic devices (like mobile phones, hard drives, and laptops) that directly form material or digital evidence of a crime.
3. Contraband Seizure: Taking absolute possession of items whose very ownership or existence is illegal, such as commercial-quantity narcotics, banned counterfeit currency, or unlicensed firearms.
4. Forfeiture/Seizure of Crime Proceeds: Restraining assets or funds directly utilised for or accumulated from illegal acts, such as gambling rings, extortion, or cyber fraud.

Immovable Property: Can the Police Seize Land or Buildings?

No. A police officer has no authority to seize, attach, or seal immovable property during an active investigation. While the statutory text mentions “any property,” the judiciary has consistently maintained a strict boundary safeguarding real estate. The definitive legal position outlines that while documents of title or sale deeds associated with land can be seized as evidence, physical land, homes, plots, or commercial buildings cannot be taken into custody or sealed by an investigating officer.

Key Precedents on Immovable Property:

• Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court): The Apex Court clarified that the expression “any property” does not include immovable property. The police cannot dispossess a citizen of their land or building under investigative seizure powers.
• The State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (Supreme Court): Reaffirming the Nevada Properties doctrine, the Supreme Court summarized the absolute principles of seizure. The Bench explicitly held that the police do not hold an enabling power to unilaterally seize immovable property or evict a person in possession under the guise of an ongoing investigation.

Freezing of Bank Accounts: The Doctrine of Proportionality

With the massive surge in cybercrime and financial fraud, investigating authorities routinely issue directives to banks to mark a lien or freeze accounts. In criminal law, a bank account is legally recognized as “movable property” capable of being frozen if a clear nexus exists with an alleged crime. However, this power faces stringent judicial limits:

1. No Blanket Freezing: The police cannot mechanically freeze an entire functional business or personal bank account over a minor disputed transaction. The restriction must be strictly confined to the exact amount linked to the alleged offence.
2. Requirement of a Direct Nexus: There must be a clear, provable chain of transactions linking the frozen funds to the alleged crime. Random or speculative freezing based on mere assumptions is legally invalid.
3. Mandatory Magistrate Notification: ### Crucial Precedents on Account Freezing:

• Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (Supreme Court): The Apex Court strongly reprimanded the practice of failing to report bank freezes. It held that the statutory mandate to report a seizure “forthwith” to the jurisdictional Magistrate is a critical element of natural justice. Failure to notify the Magistrate without delay can render the entire freezing action procedurally defective and illegal.
• Malabar Gold & Diamonds Ltd. v. Union of India (High Court Ruling): This ruling provided landmark clarity on the transition to the new criminal law regime. The Court held that while Section 106 of the BNSS is strictly confined to temporary interim seizures for evidentiary purposes, any permanent attachment or freezing intended to secure large-scale “proceeds of crime” must go through the more rigorous judicial scrutiny provided under Section 107 of the BNSS.

Legal Remedies: What to Do If Your Property Is Wrongfully Seized

If a police officer acts outside their statutory powers, or if your legitimate property or bank account has been caught up in an investigation unjustly, the following legal avenues are available:

• Application Before the Jurisdictional Magistrate: Affected parties can move an urgent application under Section 515 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 457 of the old CrPC) seeking the interim release of the seized property (Superdari) or a partial de-freezing of a bank account upon executing an indemnity bond.
• Writ Jurisdiction Before the High Court: If the police fail to report the seizure to the Magistrate or freeze assets arbitrarily without a direct nexus, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed before the High Court to quash the illegal seizure or freezing order.

Conclusion:

A police officer can seize certain properties of any person lawfully. But there are certain conditions where a police officer cannot retain the property of any person. The above body explains section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other related topics. For more details, contact us here.