Police Cannot Debit-Freeze Bank Account of taxpayers Without Magistrate’s Order

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kirti Deora, Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Trading Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. - 2026 (2) TMI 892 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that a police officer does not have power to debit-freeze a bank account directly without prior sanction or order of a jurisdictional Magistrate under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(“BNSS”), and that a writ petition is maintainable where the debit freeze and resulting injury occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Facts:

Kirti Deora, Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Trading (“the Petitioner”) challenged the debit freezing of her bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Kankurgachi Branch, which had been carried out pursuant to a notice dated January 6, 2025 issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Arunachal Pradesh in connection with investigation relating to GST proceedings.

The State of West Bengal & Ors. (“the Respondent”) and CGST authorities raised a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction, contending that investigation and proceedings were centered in Arunachal Pradesh and therefore the writ petition ought to have been filed before the Gauhati High Court.

The Petitioner contended that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court because the bank account that was frozen was located within its jurisdiction, and further contended that police authorities lacked power under Section 94 of the BNSS to debit-freeze a bank account without following the statutory procedure requiring involvement of a Magistrate.

The Respondent contended that the debit freeze had been carried out during investigation pursuant to a complaint by CGST authorities, and that the writ petition should not be entertained for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Aggrieved by the debit freezing of the bank account and alleging illegality and lack of authority of law, the Petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking quashing of the debit-freeze notice and restoration of operation of the bank account.

Issue:

Whether police authorities have power to debit-freeze a bank account without an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate under the BNSS, and whether the writ petition is maintainable before a High Court within whose jurisdiction the bank account is located?

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Kirti Deora, Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Trading Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. - 2026 (2) TMI 892 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held as under:

• Observed that, for determining territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2), the Court must examine whether material facts constituting cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
• Noted that, the main cause of action was the debit freezing of the Petitioner’s bank account located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore the writ petition was maintainable.
• Observed that, Section 94 of the BNSS merely empowers issuance of summons for production of documents and does not empower police authorities to debit-freeze a bank account.
• Noted that, under Section 106BNSS, seizure by police is subject to reporting to the jurisdictional Magistrate, and attachment under Section 107 can only be effected upon orders passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate pursuant to an application made by the police.
• Observed that, there was nothing on record to show that the Investigating Officer had approached the jurisdictional Magistrate or obtained any order of seizure or attachment or reported the debit freeze to the Magistrate.
• Noted that, a debit freeze of a bank account cannot be continued indefinitely without any appropriate order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
• Held that, the impugned notice directing debit freezing of the Petitioner’s bank account was not in accordance with law and was quashed, and the bank was directed to allow operation of the account, while clarifying that authorities could take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Our Comments:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Versus Union of India and Others - 2014 (8) TMI 994 - Supreme Court, held that a writ petition is maintainable if a legal right is infringed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. This principle was applied to hold that freezing of a bank account within jurisdiction confers territorial jurisdiction.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

“94. Summons to produce document or other thing-

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices, which is likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer may, by a written order, either in physical form or in electronic form, require the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document, or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-

(a) to affect sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891); or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal authority.”

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

“106. (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:

Provided that where the property seized under sub section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 505 and 506 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.”

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])