Reason to believe under attachment law must rest on material, while notice safeguards to interested persons remain mandatory.

Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires the Magistrate to record a genuine, objective "reason to believe" on material showing a rational link between the facts and the conclusion that property is proceeds of crime; a mere assumption or suspicion is insufficient, and the original attachment could not stand. The attachment procedure must also be strictly followed, including notice to persons having an interest in the property, and non-response to notice does not by itself cure procedural safeguards. The revisional court was therefore correct in setting aside the attachment order, and the challenge failed, though fresh attachment remained permissible in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside the order of attachment passed under section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on the ground that the satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate was based on assumption or suspicion rather than "reason to believe", and whether the absence of notice to a lessor or other claimant vitiated the attachment proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires a genuine formation of "reason to believe" on the basis of material, and not a mere assumption that property is proceeds of crime. The expression must be understood as an objective standard requiring rational connection between the material and the belief formed, with a live link between the facts and the conclusion. The Court also noted that the attachment procedure must be followed strictly, including notice to persons having an interest in the property, and that the statutory safeguards cannot be bypassed on the basis of non-response to notice alone. At the same time, the matter ought not to have ended with merely setting aside the attachment if the defect was procedural and capable of correction through a fresh lawful request.

Conclusion: The revisional court was correct in holding that the original attachment order could not stand, and the challenge to that view failed. The dismissal of the revision was maintained, while liberty remained to seek fresh attachment in accordance with law.

---