Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76761-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7942 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ms Saket Teli Engeneer Work Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar,Akshay Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice dated 30.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.03, under Sections 94/106 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) freezing of debit the petitioner's account i.e. No.918020053764065, IFSC-UTIB0001351 of Axis Bank, in respect of the Crime No.0123 of 2024, under Sections 303 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Madawara, District Lalitpur. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no.03 herein to de-freeze the petitioner's account i.e. No.918020053764065, IFSC-UTIB0001351 of Axis Bank in respect of Crime No.0123 of 2024 under Section 303 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Madawara (Not Girar), District Lalitpur, under Section 94/106 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) during in the investigation." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made specific averments in paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 of the petition, which are as under: " 26. That, the aforesaid Crime was registered on 21.08.2024 and the respondent No.3 herein by the Impugned Notice dated 30.09.2024, debit freeze the account of the petitioner herein but till date, neither the respondent No.03 herein has reported the seizure to the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction and where the property seized. 27. That, although the petitioner herein has also approached to the Court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur who has local jurisdiction over the Crime and requested to direct the police concerned to de-freeze the aforesaid account but the same is not been considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur till date. " 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State- respondents, they have replied to the aforesaid paragraphs, which has been given in paragraph No.20, which are as follows:- "That the contents of paragraph No. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence, denied. In reply, it is stated that petitioner firm involved in the transaction of money with the co-accused persons and they sold stolen Anjana to the petitioner and receive their money and the said transaction took place from the bank of account of petitioner firm therefore, the respondent no.3 had issued a notice dated 30.09.2024 under section 94/106 of B.N.S.S. by which the account no. 978020053764065 IFSC Code-UIB0001351 of Axis Bank was freezed and the notice dated 30.09.2024 is wholly just, legal and proper and the same is not suffered from any illegality or infirmity. According to DCRB report, accused petitioner has no criminal history to its credit. Copy of the DCRB report is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.-2 to this affidavit. " 5. This Court finds that no specific reply has been given by the State-respondents with regard to the averments made in paragraph No.26 of the petition regarding post seizure intimation of account to Magistrate. 6. The Gauhati High Court in the case of Rahul Hi Rise Ltd. and Another vs. State of Assam Rep. By Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home Department and others has considered similar fact situation with regard to the provisions of Cr.P.C. in para-22, which reads as under:- "A careful analysis of section 102 Cr.P.C. (106 BNSS) would reveal that power to seize any property can be exercised if the police officer is of the view that it was alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. This is the sine-qua-non for invoking the power to seize property. If seizure was made by a subordinate officer, he is required to forthwith report seizure to his superior officer. However, every police officer is required under the law to forthwith report seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Thus, Section 102 Cr.P.C. (106 BNSS) visualises two requirements - one preseizure and one post-seizure. Pre-seizure requirement which is the sinequa-non for invocation of the power is the allegation or suspicion that the property is stolen or that it was found in such circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. After seizure is made, factum of seizure has to be reported by the police officer to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith. " 7. In view of the above, it is clear that provision of Section 106 (2) BNSS has been violated in this case. Accordingly, the banks concerned are directed to de-freeze the account of petitioner and permit him to operate the accounts on the condition that he shall execute bond of the amount in his account to the effect that in case, after investigation it is found that money was begotten from illegitimate sources, he will deposit the same before the banks concerned. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Amit Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad