# Ashish Rawat v. Union of India & Ors. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Matter pertains to - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 814 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-08 - **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashish-rawat-v-union-of-india-ors-issue-for-consideration-matter-pertains-to-54478 - **Pages:** 21 ## Text _Characters 0–39,650 of 69,124. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39650 for what follows._ 814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES by a subsequent judgment of this Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan [(1976) 3 SCC 642 : 1976 Supp SCR 519 : AIR 1976 SC 1485] where it has been held as follows (at p. 1488 of AIR): (SCC p. 645, para 14) "It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title." (emphasis supplied)" 27. Above referred findings of Consolidation Officer were upheld by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, it was very lightly interfered by Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, interference is legally unsustainable as well as above discussed legal position is also against the contesting respondents. 28. Therefore, impugned judgment passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is accordingly set aside and judgments passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation are upheld. 29. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 814 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. Writ C No. 1489 of 2026 alongwith connected cases Ashish Rawat ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Matter pertains to: (i) Whether the term "property" under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 extends to the entire bank account or only to a particular amount therein alleged to be stolen or suspected to be involved in an offence; 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 815 (ii) Whether a bank account can be frozen at the instance of the police without prior intimation to the account holder or the competent Magistrate in the light of the procedure prescribed under Section 106 BNSS; (iii) Whether Sections 106 and 107 BNSS operate independently and distinctly, with Section 106 governing seizure or temporary freezing of accounts and Section 107 governing attachment of accounts, and whether their applicability differs at different stages of investigation; and (iv) Whether any jurisdictional issue arises where bank accounts are maintained at one place but the transactions giving rise to the alleged suspicious amounts occur elsewhere, and consequently where jurisdiction of the Magistrate would vest. HEADNOTE Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss.106, 107 - Constitution of India - Art.226 - Writ petitions challenging freezing of bank accounts by banks on instructions of police/cyber crime authorities in connection with cyber fraud complaints - Petitioners contended that accounts were frozen without notice, without compliance of Section 106 BNSS and without orders of Magistrate - Some petitioners further contended that entire accounts were frozen though alleged suspicious transactions involved only limited amounts - Questions arose regarding power of police to freeze accounts, distinction between seizure and attachment, and territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate. Held: Bank account is "property" within the meaning of Section 106 BNSS and can be seized if found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. The term "property" under Section 106 BNSS would extend only to that amount which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which is suspected to be involved in the commission of an offence and not to the entire amount lying in the bank account. Where only a particular amount lying in a bank account is alleged or suspected to be connected with an offence, power of seizure is limited to the extent of the alleged or suspicious amount and cannot be construed to permit freezing of the entire operation of the bank account. Banks can place a lien only to the extent of the amount alleged or suspected to be involved in the offence and operation of the account cannot be restricted beyond such amount. Court held that freezing of a bank account at the instance of the police without prior intimation to the account holder or prior order of the Magistrate is permissible under Section 106 BNSS, provided the police officer forthwith reports the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 106(3) BNSS. Prior notice to the account holder is not required before or simultaneously attaching a bank account but a post facto report is mandatorily required to be submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate. However, neither Section 106 and Section 107 of the BNSS, nor any other law, prohibits bank authorities from informing account holders about the operational status of their accounts. While such intimation may not be required prior to seizure, banks shall inform the account holders after the seizure of the account, upon instructions from the investigating agencies. Bank account holders, being consumers of the banks, are at least entitled to be informed of the seizure of their accounts, which renders them non-operational, so as to protect themselves from hardships and to take appropriate legal recourse. Court further held that Sections 106 and 107 BNSS operate independently and distinctly. Section 106 governs seizure or temporary freezing of property during investigation and Section 107 governs attachment of property. Seizure under Section 106 is a temporary measure available to the investigating agency, whereas attachment under Section 107 can be ordered only by the Magistrate in accordance with law. Court also held that for the purposes of Section 106(3), jurisdiction would vest in the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the bank account is seized or frozen and not where the transaction giving rise to the suspicious amount occurred. (E-5) [Paras 36, 37, 39, 40, 50, 51, 53] 816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES CASE LAW CITED State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2753; State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685; Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372; Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 20 SCC 119; Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546; Mr. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778; Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 297. List of Acts Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Freezing of bank account; Cyber fraud; Cyber crime complaints; Seizure of bank account; Property under Section 106 BNSS; Suspicious transactions; Lien on bank account; Distinction between seizure and attachment; Sections 106 and 107 BNSS; Prior notice to account holder; Reporting to Magistrate; Jurisdictional Magistrate; Cyber Crime Portal; Partial freezing; Restoration of banking operations; Investigatory seizure; Attachment of proceeds of crime. CASE ARISING FROM Petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the bank authorities in freezing their bank accounts on the instructions of the Cyber Crime/Crime Branch authorities. Writ petitions were filed seeking a direction to the respondents to de-freeze their bank accounts. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Akash Kumar Sharma, Ashwani Kumar, Shamasul Eslam Advs. for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sanjai Singh, Tushar Kant (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shamasul Eslam, learned counsel for the petitioner in leading petition, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 648 of 2026, Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 665 of 2026, Shri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 889 of 2026 & Writ -C No. 1118 of 2026, Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 1768 of 2026, Shri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ -C No. 2577 of 2026, Shri Vidya Kant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 2691 of 2026, Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026, Shri Aditya Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 2989 of 2026, Shri Arun Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ -C No. 4227 of 2026, and Shri Tushar Kant, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing in all the cases for Union of India, Shri Shrey Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 817 learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in connected Writ-C no. 1768 of 2026, Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (SBI) and Shri Abhishek Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 in connected Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026, Shri Sanji Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in connected Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026 and for respondent nos. 4 to 6 in connected Writ-C No. 2989 of 2026, Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in connected Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026 and Shri Anubhav Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents in all the petitions. 2. All the present petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the bank authorities in freezing their bank accounts. The grievance, in essence, pertains to the restrictions placed on the operation of bank accounts due to investigation of cyber offences where their account had alleged financial transaction. In the light of above-mentioned facts and circumstances petitioners have filed their respective petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents for de-freezing of their bank accounts. Since the reliefs sought in all the petitions are substantially alike, and the matters arise out of similar set of facts involving identical questions of law, all the petitions were connected and taken up together for hearing. However, necessary facts pleaded in each writ petitions and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in the respective petitions are being noticed separately. 3. In Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026 the fact in brief is that the petitioner has got a savings account no. (hereinafter referred as ?A/c No.?) 2340000109223949 in Punjab National Bank, Gwal Toli Branch, Kanpur Nagar. On 12.12.2025, the petitioner discovered his online transactions were stopped, thereafter he visited the branch manager the following day, where he was informed that his account had been freezed on instructions of the crime branch without specifying the reason for the freezing. 4. In Writ-C No. 889 of 2026, the factual matrix is that petitioner?s A/c No. 20348241556, maintained at the State Bank of India, Branch Suhag Nagar, Firozabad, was freezed by the respondent authorities without any prior notice, duration or reasons for the seizure. The petitioner alleges that this action was taken mechanically and without statutory authority, and despite submission of representation for de-freezing, no action was taken by the respondents. 5. The factual foundation of Writ-C No. 1768 of 2026 is account freezing of the petitioner?s A/c No. 520291001842711 in Union Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch District Kanpur and A/c No. 1969100100013506 in Punjab National Bank, Govind Nagar Branch District Kanpur. In this case, the investigating officer requested the respondent bank to put the disputed account on hold, which was under dispute in a private dispute in between parties. Following the seizure, the petitioner moved an application before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, but the accounts are still not de-freezed as pleaded by the petitioner. 6. The facts giving rise to Writ-C No. 2691 of 2026 is freezing of petitioner?s bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda, Barkhera Branch, Pilibhit. The bank stopped transactions in the petitioner's account due to two specific transfers, i.e., Rs.60 received on 19.09.2023, for which 818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES there is Cyber Crime Acknowledgement No. 23109230080435, and transaction of Rs.1 transferred on 27.09.2023, for which there is Cyber Crime Acknowledgement No. 31109230128980. 7. In the case of the petitioner in Writ-C No. 648 of 2026, the facts are that petitioner?s A/c No. 50100801261478 maintained at HDFC Bank, Phulpur Branch, District Prayagraj was arbitrarily freezed by the bank on the basis of instructions received from the Station House Officer (SHO), Cyber Station, Prayagraj, citing Cyber Police Portal Acknowledgement No. 21511250032616 dated 23.02.2025. The petitioner contends that his entire account has been blocked indefinitely, which is severely affecting his livelihood and family obligations, without the authorities supplying him any FIR, complaint, or judicial order in that regard. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts he is neither named as an accused nor has he been informed of any specific offence or investigation, and that the freezing action was carried out without providing any prior notice, opportunity of hearing, or recording of legal reasons under statutory provisions like Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as ?BNSS?) (earlier Section 102 CrPC). 8. The fact in Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026 is that various accounts of the petitioner were freezed by the banks on the instructions of the Cyber Crime Police Station, District Ballia, on the basis of certain alleged illegal amounts were deposited into the petitioner's accounts from unknown sources. It is pleaded that the petitioner is a retired government employee who is currently engaged in a small agricultural business. He also pleads that he has not received any FIR, summons, or legal notice regarding any investigation, and that the freezing of his accounts, which include his pension and agricultural income, without any order from the Magistrate under Section 107 of the BNSS (earlier Section 102 CrPC) is arbitrary and illegal action of respondents. Details of total amount, i.e. Rs.9,31,759/- that has been freezed by different banks are given below. Bank A/c No. Amount State Bank of India, BranchAgarsanda, Ballia (IFSC: SBIN0017598) 30380446638 Rs. 3,15,000/- Axis Bank, Branch-Ballia (IFSC: UTIB0000897) 924010054535613 92402007180658 Rs. 9,759/- Rs. 26,000/- HDFC Bank, Branch-Ballia (IFSC: HDFC0001885) 924020071806580 Rs. 4,50,000/- Post Payment Bank (IPPB), BranchBallia (IFSC: IPOS0000001) 055110085655 Rs. 76,000/- Airtel Payment Bank, Branch-Ballia (IFSC: AIRP0000001) 8334884806 Rs. 55,000/- 9. The relevant factual backdrop in Writ-C No. 1118 of 2026 is that the petitioner, maintains Indusind Bank A/c No. 158218574927 at the Firozabad branch, having balance of Rs. 9,46,898.39/- was freezed by the bank without prior notice, show-cause, or communication. Upon inquiry, the 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 819 bank informed the petitioner that the account was freezed at the request of the Bengaluru Police. The petitioner contends that this action is arbitrary and illegal, as he has no involvement with any offence or criminal case. 10. The brief facts leading to Writ-C No. 2577of 2026 are that the petitioner?s A/c No. 50100572517727 maintained with HDFC Bank at Ballia, A/c No. 05511018380 in Post Payment Bank at Ballia, and A/c No. 92402007180664 in Axis Bank at Ballia are freezed on directions received from the Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station at Ballia, with liens marked in the amounts of Rs. 50,000/- in HDFC Bank, Rs. 1,00,000/- in Post Payment Bank, and Rs. 90,000/- in Axis Bank. The Cyber Crime Branch verbally informed the petitioner that the accounts were freezed due to an inquiry into deposits from illegal sources. The petitioner pleaded that the investigating agency acted without the required magisterial permission or legal authority under sections 106 or 107 of the BNSS. 11. In Writ-C No. 2989 of 2026, the factual background is that the petitioner has A/c No. 0862000100303087 at the Punjab National Bank, Samthar Branch, District Jhansi. The petitioner is engaged in online trading activities from which he has received an amount of Rs. 2000/- into his bank account. Upon visiting his home branch, he was informed that a lien has been imposed on his account on the basis of several complaints initiated from two police stations in Bangalore City (Karnataka) and one from Rachakonda (Telangana). Despite submitting a detailed representation via email on 16.12.2025, and a follow-up mail on 20.12.2025, to the aforementioned cyber police units, the blanket freeze remains in place, which the petitioner contends is arbitrary and prevents him from meeting essential financial obligations. 12. So far as Writ-C No. 4227 of 2026 is concerned, the fact is that the petitioner has maintained his A/c No. 10208002044 with IDFC First Bank Maunath Bhanjan Branch, District Mau, regarding which he has got information on 31.12.2025 that his A/c was freezed in pursuance of directives issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) due to multiple cybercrime complaints across several states. The freezing is linked to complaint made in various parts of the country with details provided in following table. State Amount Complaint No. Gujrat Rs. 29,505 Rs. 10,495 910162582728 31106250119690 Karnataka Rs. 41,694/- 31602250016485 Kerala Rs. 41,694/- 31502250003378 Haryana Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 181241168592 31301250006471; 910162582728 West Bengal Rs. 41,250 23201250005445 13. Insofar as the petitioner in Writ-C No. 665 of 2026 is concerned, the fact is that the account holder is a government teacher who holds a bank A/c No. 30926051202 with State Bank of India, Branch Barsathi, District Jaunpur, which has been freezed since November 2024. The A/c 820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES was freezed due to the credit of Rs. 10,000/- from Bangalore City, District Karnataka. Due to freezing of the account, petitioner is facing hardship including not being able to make payment towards his home loan, which were previously debited as EMI from the same account. The petitioner contends that the bank's action is unjustified as the credit is a single transaction, which appears to be clerical error rather than any cybercrime. 14. Having set out the facts pleaded in the respective petitions, the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties are recorded hereunder. 15. At the outset, Shri Shamasul Eslam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the leading petition Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026, Ashish Rawat vs. Union of India and 6 others, submitted that the account in question has already been de-freezed. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents in the matter, did not dispute the same. 16. Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in connected Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026, Tarkeswar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 others, argued that the petitioner?s bank accounts got freezed in different banks on the basis of instructions received from cyber-crime branch Ballia. He contended that neither the petitioner was informed by the bank, nor was any intimation sent to the concerned magistrate by the investigating agency, and therefore the freezing of the accounts was therefore carried out in a manner de hors the procedure prescribed under Section 106 of the BNSS. 17. Shri Naqvi further contended that even assuming that provisions of Section 106 BNSS were applicable, a debit bank account could not have been completely freezed and the same should be only up to the extent of suspected amount, that too after complying the procedure under Section 106 BNSS. He relies on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & others, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546, which was subsequently followed by the High Court of Bombay in Mr. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778 and the same was also discussed by High Court of Delhi in Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 297. On the basis of these judgments, he submitted that the act and conduct of respondent bank in freezing the account at the instance of investigating agency is liable to be held invalid and the bank should be directed to de-freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners forthwith. 18. Shri Naqvi further submitted that, insofar as the account with India Post Payments Bank bearing IFSC Code IPOS0000001 is concerned, the same has already been de-freezed and to that extent, the issue is resolved with India Post Payments Bank. However, he had further submitted that there are five more freezed bank accounts regarding which the petition is still required to be pressed. 19. Shri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in connected Writ-C No. 648 of 2026, Mohammad Alqaish vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, and Shri Malik Juned Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in connected Writ-C No. 2577 of 2026, Priyanka Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, had adopted submissions made by Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate in Writ-C No. 2711 of 2026. However, Shri Ahmed, submitted that 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 821 in Writ-C No. 2577 of 2026, three bank accounts are freezed for which the writ petition is being pursued. 20. Shri Sanjay Verma learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ-C No. 1768 of 2026, Mohammad Irfan vs. State of U. P. and 3 others, submitted that this court vide its order dated 30.01.2026 in above mentioned writ petition, has directed regional managers of respondent banks to file personal affidavit in this matter. Responding this, Shri Shrey Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union Bank submitted that the bank account of the petitioner had already been defreezed and, in view of this development, he has filed an affidavit in the registry on 27.02.2026. Similarly, Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, appearing for Punjab National Bank submits that he has also filed affidavit stating that petitioner?s account in question is de-freezed. After perusal of the above mentioned affidavits issues raised in the petition appears to be resolved. 21. Shri Vidya Kant Rai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in connected Writ-C No. 2691 of 2026, Sarfaraj vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, and Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank in connected, submits that under the interim order of this Court, the account of the petitioner has been de-freezed while holding back the disputed amount in the bank account. In view of the above since the disputed amount has only been held back by the bank, otherwise the bank account has been made operational. 22. Shri Aditya Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in connected, Writ-C No. 2989 of 2026, Chandra Narayan Singh vs. Union of India and 5 others, in addition to the submissions made by other counsels as mentioned above, had submitted that the bank account of the petitioner, in which the suspicious amount was reported to have been transacted, is from different web links operating from different parts of the Country and therefore, there may be jurisdictional issue as to the power of the Magistrate in the above regard, insofar as the provisions contained under section 106 of the BNSS are concerned. 23. Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the connected Writ-C No. 665 of 2026, Mayank Pratap Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, and 2 others, submitted that the petitioner is a teacher in a Junior Basic School and his salary account has been freezed which is also the account for paying dues towards the advance given by the bank, and since the account has been freezed, the petitioner is getting the status of a defaulter, inasmuch as the bank as well as the Cyber Crime Department has failed to intimate the Magistrate concerned about the freezing of the account of the petitioner, which therefore, invalidates the act and conduct of the respondent bank in freezing the account. 24. Shri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the connected Writ-C No. 889 of 2026, Yogesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, has adopted the argument of Shri Santosh Kumar Debey, as, according to him, the alleged transaction took place through an account of a bank at Patna, Bihar, into the account of the petitioner at the Firozabad branch of the bank and hence has a jurisdictional issue. 25. Shri Vikrant Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the connected Writ-C No. 1118 of 2026, Vishwadeep vs. State of U.P. and two others, had adopted the 822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES submissions advanced by Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey in the connected Writ-C No. 665 of 2026. Similarly, Shri Arun Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in connected Writ-C No. 4227 of 2026, Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and 4 others, had also adopted submissions made by Shri Santosh Kumar Debey in Writ-C No. 665 of 2026. 26. Meeting the submissions made by the counsel appearing for petitioners in their respective petitions, Shri Tushar Kant, learned advocate appearing for the Union of India, has submitted that at present there is clarity in procedure at every step as the Standard Operating Procedure/ Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the "SoP") published by the Ministry of Home Affairs is in effect, which provides detail procedure for seizing and de-freezzing of the bank account, although details of the complainant or victim shall not be provided to the suspect account holder even as per SoP. Hence, according to him, non-furnishing of the detail information to the bank account holder, does not invalidate freezing of the bank account. He has also submitted that the freezing of the account is an action to protect the account holder and to ensure that the account is not misused any further for the same crime, freezing without delay is necessary but it is to be freezed as per provisions of BNSS, which permits police to act in case of suspicion of crime. 27. Shri Anubhav Chandra, learned Standing counsel representing the State respondents submitted that provisions of the BNSS are very clear that the police is empowered under Section 106 BNSS to direct for seizure of the account and for that prior intimation to the account holder is not necessary and only the information is required to be given to the magistrate that too after seizure unlike the matter of attachment under Section 107 where the order of the magistrate is prerequisite to the attachment. 28. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India as well as the counsel for the Bank in connected Writ -C No. 2989 of 2026 submitted that since the account of the petitioner is in bank situated in a particular city where it is freezed, then having the cause of action there, the Magistrate of the concerned District where the Bank situates shall have jurisdiction under section 106 of BNSS and there is no issue about it, especially when there is no such incident referred by the petitioners where any magistrate has refused to entertain any such case. 29. After hearing learned counsel and careful perusal of records, we consider it appropriate, to present status of the bank accounts in each petition in a tabulated form for the sake of clarity and convenience. The table below present status thereof, as emerging from the records and submissions made during hearing. Case title Bank Account No. A/c status WRIT-C No. 1489 OF 2026 PNB 2340000109223949 de-freezed WRIT-C No. 648 of 2026 HDFC 50100801261478 Freezed WRIT-C No. 665 SBI 30926051202 Freezed 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 823 of 2026 WRIT-C No. 889 of 2026 SBI 20348241556 Freezed WRIT-C No. 1118 of 2026 Indusind bank 158218574927 Freezed WRIT-C No. 1768 of 2026 Union bank of india UBI - 520291001842711 de-freezed Punjab National Bank PNB1969100100013506 de-freezed WRIT-C No. 2577 of 2026 HDFC HDFC- 50100572517727 Freezed post payment bank Ballia BALLIA055110118380 Freezed Axis bank AXIS924020071806645 Freezed WRIT-C No. 2691 of 2026 Bank of baroda BOB- 08300100019613 de-freezed except Rs.61/- WRIT-C No. 2711 of 2026 SBI SBI-30380446638 Freezed AXIS AXIS924010054535613 Freezed AXIS AXIS- 924020071806580 Freezed HDFC HDFC50100792924805 Freezed Post payment bank, Ballia Post payment bank, ballia055110085655 de-freezed Airtel payment bank Airtel payment bank-8334884806 Freezed 824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES WRIT-C No. 2989 of 2026 PNB PNB0862000100303087 Freezed WRIT-C No. 4227 of 2026 IDFC IDFC-10208002044 freezed 30. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, following questions emerge for the determination: (i) Whether the term "property" under Section 106 BNSS extends to entire bank account or only to a particular amount therein alleged to be stolen or suspected to be involved in an offence. (ii) Whether the bank can freeze accounts at the instance of the police without prior intimation to the account holder or the competent magistrate in the light of procedure prescribed under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (iii) Whether Sections 106 and 107 of BNSS operate independently and distinctly, with Section 106 BNSS governing seizure or temporary freezing of accounts and Section 107 BNSS governing attachment of the account, and whether their applicability differs at different stages of investigation. (iv) Whether there arises any jurisdictional issue in the event bank accounts are maintained in one place, but the transactions giving rise to the alleged suspicious amounts occur elsewhere, and hence where the jurisdiction of a magistrate would vest. 31. At this stage, we proceed to examine the scope and ambit of Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is necessary for the determination of first, second and third issue, which fall for consideration in the present batch of petitions. Section 106 BNSS reads as under: "106. Power of police officer to seize certain property.-(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 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 825 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 503 and 504 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale." 32. Section 107 BNSS is also related and same is reproduced below for easy reference: "107. Attachment, forfeiture or restoration of property.-(1) Where a police officer making an investigation has reason to believe that any property is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of a criminal activity or from the commission of any offence, he may, with the approval of the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, make an application to the Court or the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence or commit for trial or try the case, for the attachment of such property. (2) If the Court or the Magistrate has reasons to believe, whether before or after taking evidence, that all or any of such properties are proceeds of crime, the Court or the Magistrate may issue a notice upon such person calling upon him to show cause within a period of fourteen days as to why an order of attachment shall not be made. (3) Where the notice issued to any person under sub-section (2) specifies any property as being held by any other person on behalf of such person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such other person. (4) The Court or the Magistrate may, after considering the explanation, if any, to the show-cause notice issued under sub-section (2) and the material fact available before such Court or Magistrate and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to such person or persons, may pass an order of attachment, in respect of those properties which are found to be the proceeds of crime: Provided that if such person does not appear before the Court or the Magistrate or represent his case before the Court or Magistrate within a period of fourteen days specified in the show-cause notice, the Court or the Magistrate may proceed to pass the ex parte order. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the Court or the Magistrate is of the opinion that issuance of notice under the said sub-section would defeat the object of attachment or seizure, the Court or Magistrate may by an interim order passed ex parte direct attachment or seizure of such property, and such order shall remain in force till an order under sub-section (6) is passed. (6) If the Court or the Magistrate finds the attached or seized properties to be the proceeds of crime, the Court or the Magistrate shall by order direct the District Magistrate to rateably distribute such proceeds of crime to the persons who are affected by such crime. (7) On receipt of an order passed under sub-section (6), the District Magistrate shall, within a period of sixty days distribute the proceeds of crime either by himself or authorise any officer subordinate to him to effect such distribution. (8) If there are no claimants to receive such proceeds or no claimant is ascertainable or there is any surplus after satisfying the claimants, such proceeds of crime shall stand forfeited to the Government." 33. Bare reading of the aforementioned provisions indicate that it empowers the investigating agency, to take necessary steps for seizure or securing of property suspected to be connected with the commission of any offence during the course of the investigation. The object underlying the 826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES provision is to enable immediate and effective action so as to preserve the subject matter of the offence and to prevent its dissipation, particularly in cases of cyber-crime, where delay may defeat the ends of justice. 34. The Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2753, examined the powers of the police under Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 BNSS) while addressing the following questions, and held that: "2. The short but significant question that arises in this appeal is whether, when proceedings initiated against a person are only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, would it be open for the investigating authorities (police) to freeze the accounts of the accused persons under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In other words, are the powers under Section 18A of the PC Act, which prescribes the application of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 19442 insofar as the proceedings of attachment are concerned, and the power under Section 102 Cr. P.C., i.e., the power of a police officer to seize certain property, co-existent or mutually exclusive. .... 9. The text of Section 102, Cr. P.C., has already been reproduced supra. From a studied analysis of the judgments of this Court involving this provision, the following principles/aspects can be highlighted: 9.1 Under this Section, property that is alleged/suspected to be stolen; is the object of crime; has a direct link to the commission of the offence, can be seized. [See: M.T. Enrica Lexie v. Doramma ] 9.2 The police have the power to seize passports and bank accounts under this Section. [See: Tapas D. Neogy (supra), Suresh Nanda v. CBI, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat ] 9.3 Orders of freezing issued under this Section, can only be in effect to aid investigation. [See: Jermyn Capital LLC v. CBI] Once the investigation is complete, that ipso facto, does not entitle the person whose bank accounts have been frozen, to have them released. It shall, however, be open to them to apply to the concerned authority for the same, and the authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. [See: Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra)] 9.4 The police do not have the power to seize any immovable property. It cannot dispossess someone who is in possession of the immovable property. [See: Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra] 9.5 It is not an enabling provision under which the police may, to do justice, seize the property and hand it over to whom they believe to be the rightful owner thereof. [See: Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. (supra)]" 35. The issue regarding bank account being a property, is already settled by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685 where the Apex Court has recognized that a bank account is "property" within the meaning of Section 102 CrPC, which is verbatim Section 106 BNSS after arrival of new criminal laws. Since the bank account is recognised as a property by the Supreme Court, it can undoubtedly be capable of being freezed on instructions of the police or investigating authority during investigation. Relevant paragraph of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Tapas D. Neogy, (supra) observes that: 4 All. Ashish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. 827 "12.