CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 22.05.2026 Pronounced on : 10.07.2026 M/s OM Circuit Boards Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Ors. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Ms. Anjali Jha, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, and Ms. Isha Janjua, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG Haryana. Mr. Sant Saran V, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ in the nature of certiorari for the following reliefs:- i. To set aside the order/written communication/notice dated 18.02.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 94/106 ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNSS’ only; and ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to remove the lien of Rs.32,09,907/- against the current bank account of the petitioner bearing No.723705000785 lying with ICICI Bank, Sector-16, Noida. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 2 2. In nut-shell, the facts pleaded by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a juristic person as per General Clauses Act, and tht the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one of the Directors, namely ‘Shri Paramveer Singh’, who is duly authorised to do so. According to petitioner, the petitioner company is engaged in trading of electronic products & component, solder wire, solder stick related to lighting/solar industry, and that for the abovesaid purpose, it has been duly registered with Goods and Service Tax Department. As per petitioner, in normal course of its business activities, another firm, namely ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, situated at Kundli, had placed an order for supply of circuit boards, and that in the abovementioned order placed with the petitioner, there was a condition that the goods be supplied to ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, situated at Plot No.459-B, Phase-3rd Industrial Estate, Kundli, Sonipat. Furthermore, another order of 5,00,000 printed circuit boards was placed by Kundli Office. 3. According to petitioner, in order to discharge its obligation with regard to abovementioned supply order, goods were duly delivered to ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’ Kundli Sonipat on multiple occasions from 14.10.2024 to 22.05.2025 in respect of purchase order bill dated 16.08.2024 and 11.10.2024. The petitioner has further alleged that since the petitioner Company was having dealing with the above-named firm ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ on regular basis in usual course of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 3 its business, the petitioner Company and the above-named firm were having a running account with regard to the supplies and payments thereof. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that further orders of 25,00,000 and 40,00,000 printed circuit boards were placed by Haridwar office of ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’ on 10.10.2024 and 01.02.2025 vide purchase order and goods were duly delivered to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’, located at Sector 6A, Sidcul Industrial Area, Haridwar on multiple occasions from 31.01.2025 to 22.05.2025. However, in final orders on 20.05.2025 and 22.05.2025, petitioner communicated to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’ vide e-mail dated 19.05.2025 of a price increase in the cost of printed circuit boards, therefore, the petitioner requested to update the purchase orders in lieu of price rise, however, ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’ failed to send any purchase order. 5. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that since the petitioner firm was having dealings with the above-named firm (‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’) on regular basis in usual course of its business, the petitioner company and the above-named firm were having a running statement of account with regard to the supplies. It is the claim of the petitioner that with regard to abovementioned business transactions, all the requisite legal formalities, as per instructions, were performed by both the firms and all the instructions issued in that regard were followed, and all the requisite papers were prepared. The petitioner has further claimed that even the requisite tax liability such as Goods and Service Tax and Income Tax etc. were duly paid by the above-named firms. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 4 6. It is the claim of the petitioner that when he was unable to access their bank account on 19.02.2026 and bank account showed negative balance, although petitioner had maintained amount approximately Rs.13,00,000/-. According to petitioner, when representative of the petitioner Company sent to ‘ICICI Bank’ Branch Sector-16, Noida to check the status of the bank account, then notice under Section 94 of BNSS dated 18.02.2026 with regard to FIR No.2 dated 01.01.2026, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sector-50, Gurugram, was handed over to the representative of the petitioner. As per petitioner, by virtue of abovementioned notice, the petitioner was called upon to produce the requisite documents/articles before the Economic Offences Wing-1, Room No.409, 4th Floor, C.P. Office Building, Gurugram at 11:00 am. According to petitioner, later on the petitioner came to know that with regard to some business dispute between ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the companies, namely ‘M/s Goel Lighting’ and ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned FIR was lodged at the instance of ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the abovementioned notice was issued with regard to abovementioned dispute. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that despite abovementioned efforts, the respondent No.2 proceeded to place a lien on the bank account of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.32,09,907/- and it was communicated by the banker of the petitioner to the petitioner. While challenging the abovementioned act of the respondent No.2, for the relief mentioned above, the instant petition has been filed. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 5 8. On notice, the abovementioned petition has been opposed by the respondents No.1 & 2. They have filed a joint reply. The respondents No.1 & 2 in their reply have come forward with a plea that for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, one FIR has been lodged in Police Station Sector- 50, Gurugram. According to respondents No.1 & 2, the abovementioned FIR has been lodged at the instance of ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, wherein there are allegations that the representative of ‘Goel Group’, through the sale representative of complainant, had approached the complainant for supply of semiconductor and solar panel components. The ‘Goel Group’ represented that the material was urgently required and assured to make the payment of price of abovementioned goods within a period of 90 days. It was further represented that the material would be procured from ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, as the abovementioned Company only, used to work on ‘Letter of Credit’ (LC). It was also represented that the companies of ‘Goel Group’ were unable to issue ‘Letter of Credit’ due to financial constraints, and ensured timely payment of money to the complainant. 9. The respondents further alleged that the complainant further alleged that based upon the abovementioned representation, purchase orders were placed with the complainant by the Company of ‘Goel Group’, namely ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, both entities controlled by ‘Mr. Rakesh Goel’. According to complainant, in furtherance of abovementioned inducement, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ personally visited the complainant’s Gurugram Office and finalized GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 6 the deal. The complainant further claimed that during such meetings, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ projected that they were established OEM/manufacturers with 20 years of experience and financially sound, but later on, the abovementioned claims were found to be false. 10. According to respondents, it was claimed by the complainant that it was expressly represented that physical material would be supplied and delivered in ordinary course of business, but on detailed verification it had been conclusively established that no physical shipment of material had ever taken place, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ never delivered goods to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’. It was further revealed that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ raised its material invoices with ‘Bill To’ as ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the corresponding ‘Ship To’ as ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ (the Goel controlled entities), but actual transactions of goods had never taken place. The respondents further alleged that as per complainant, by preparing the documents in the abovementioned fashion, the complainant was deliberately positioned as a financial intermediary, whereas there was no physical receipt/delivery/ movement of goods at the end of entities of Goel Group. 11. It has been further alleged by the respondents that as per complainant, on deeper scrutiny, it has been revealed that the entire transaction was originated and pre-structured by Goel-controlled entities, beginning from ‘VG Electronics Ltd.’, a company controlled by ‘Gaurav Goel’ S/o ‘Rakesh Goel’, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ acted in active connivance and conspiracy with the ‘Goel Group’. The respondents further GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 7 alleged that as per complainant, although delivery-challans, transporter-bills, and e-way bills were produced to show movement of goods, but on independent verification of details by the complainant, it was found that the bills of transporter were forged and fabricated, because the transporters, named in the documents, either denied having transported any such material, or did not possess any corresponding record. 12. The respondents further alleged that according to complainant, relying upon the abovementioned representation, ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ paid Rs.55.55 crores to ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, through a 90-day ‘Letter of Credit’ and that towards partial discharge of their liability, ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, issued cheques amounting to Rs.30.25 crores (approx.) in favour of complainant. As per respondents, the funds in the relevant account were insufficient, and therefore, on presentation of cheques, the banker of ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ refused to honour the same. The respondents further alleged that initially ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ had not issued any cheques, but subsequently post-dated cheques dated 15.01.2026, 16.01.2026, 17.01.2026 and 18.01.2026 were issued amounting to Rs.26,96,46,912/-. As per respondents, it was the allegation of the complainant that upon verification, it was found that in the account of ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned money was not available. 13. In view of abovementioned facts, it has been alleged by the respondents that as per complainant, right from the very beginning, with an intention to cheat the complainant, a web was designed by the Companies of ‘Goel Group’ and false documents were created to earn trust of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 8 complainant and by adopting the abovementioned modus operandi, a loss to the tune of Rs.55.55 crores (approx.) has been caused to the complainant. 14. It has been further alleged by the respondents that during the course of investigation, in the abovementioned case, it transpired that the accused company, namely ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ and ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, on the basis of lorry receipts/goods receipts, have claimed the actual physical delivery of the goods, but the representatives of the transport company revealed that no such transportation of goods through their vehicles, had taken place. 15. According to respondents, it has also been revealed during the course of investigation that out of Rs.54.10 crore transferred by the complainant company to ‘GH2 Solar Company Pvt. Ltd.’ (against the Letter of Credit) for supply of goods, a sum of Rs.32,09,907/- was received by the petitioner Company and therefore, a notice under Section 94 of BNSS was issued to ‘Lumcity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Shri Sai Enterprises’ and ‘M/s OM Circuits Boards’ (the petitioner herein), calling upon them to join the investigation as per notice dated 30.04.2026. As per respondents, petitioner has not yet joined the investigation and produced record personally. 16. The respondents have further claimed that during the course of investigation, when co-accused ‘Harshal Rajeev Lanjewar’ was joined in the investigation, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he stated that he in connivance with ‘Rakesh Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’ and other accused, hatched a plan to defraud the complainant and misappropriate the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 9 funds. He further stated that the bank accounts of ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, ‘Lumosync Ventures Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘AVM Traders’, ‘Sea Range Component Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘Lumcity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘Enkay Polymers’, ‘Savitri Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’, ‘Shri Sai Enterprises’, ‘M/s OM Circuits Boards’ (the petitioner herein) and ‘VG Electronics’ were used for layering the transactions, and that ‘Shanky Group’ and ‘Marketing Team LLP’ were involved to convert the funds into cash, using their bank accounts for the same purpose. 17. According to respondents, since a part of the money pertaining to the fraudulent transactions, i.e. Rs.32,09,907/- was transferred into the account of petitioner. Consequently, on 18.02.2026 a lien amounting to Rs.32,09,907/- was imposed by issuing a direction to the Director of the petitioner. 18. Heard. 19. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Company, who is pursuing its business in bona fide manner, and that the dispute/FIR is with regard to transactions which had taken place between ‘Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the firms/companies of ‘Rakesh Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in bona fide manner in usual course of business, when an order for supply of certain articles (pertaining to the business of the petitioner) was placed by ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’, the petitioner company supplied the requisite goods with respect to the payment of price of goods. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 10 abovementioned transactions, all the requisite formalities pertaining to supply of goods, transportation of goods, payment of tax, preparation of account books and preparation of other paper/bills etc. were duly complied with and thus, with regard to abovementioned bona fide business transaction, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner company. 20. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that being in business pertaining to the same field, there was a running account with regard to due payments between the company of petitioner and ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and therefore, in normal course, there could have been due amount of either side towards other business entities. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is stranger to the dispute between the complainant (‘M/s Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’) and the accused firm of ‘Rakesh Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’ and etc., the order for placing the lien upon the bank account of the petitioner is totally illegal, unwarranted and against the settled proposition of law. 21. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, since the money lying deposited in the account of petitioner is not stolen money or there is no suspicion that any offence with regard to abovementioned money has been committed, the provisions of Section 106 of BNSS cannot be invoked in the present case. It has been claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact in the present case, the provisions of Section 107 of BNSS are attracted and as per sub-clause (1) & (2) of Section 107 of BNSS, the lien GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 11 could have been placed upon the account of the petitioner company by filing an application before the Court of Magistrate, with the approval of Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, for attachment of property and the Court of Magistrate, after serving notice upon the petitioner, calling upon it to explain as to why the order of attachment should not be made, would have issued the order for attachment of property. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the abovementioned procedure has not been adopted and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and nonest. 22. In support of her arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases:- i. Teesta Atul Setalvad V/s State of Gujarat, 2018 (2) SCC 372 ii. M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr. V/s Doramma & Ors., 2012(6) SCC 760 iii. Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II), T.N. V/s State of T.N. & Ors., 2005(8) SCC 771 And also the principles of law laid down by other High Courts in the following cases:- i. Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546, (the High Court of Kerala) ii. Malabar Gold and Diamond Ltd. & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 297, (the High Court of Delhi) iii. Geeta Kampani V/s State of Mahrashtra & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2937, (the High Court of Bombay) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 12 23. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that instant case is a case, wherein in active connivance with each other, the funds provided by the complainant firm ‘M/s Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ have been siphoned-off by the recipient firm, namely ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ and ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and a web has been created to conceal all the illegal transactions, and the dubious transactions have been given the colour of normal business transactions between two companies. 24. According to learned counsel for the complainant, instant case is a case, wherein numerous false documents have been created by the accused in the name of their own firms as well as in the name of other firms, showing that there has been actual supply of goods and transactions of money, but on physical verification of the facts, it has transpired that neither any goods had been purchased, nor transported and thus, no supply, whatsoever, had taken place, but in order to defraud the complainant, vis-à- vis the tax authorities, false bills, receipts, invoices and transportation receipts were created. 25. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in order to secure the return of money, illegally received by the petitioner and other accused, in the exercise of its jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 106 of BNSS, a lien has been created upon the account of petitioner. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 13 that since a part of the proceeds of crime has been received by the petitioner in its account without any proper justification, the Investigating Agency has rightly placed a lien upon the abovementioned account, and that the Investigating Agency has been duly authorized to exercise such jurisdiction, by the Legislature by virtue of Section 94/106 of BNSS. 26. The learned State Counsel has contended that in order to secure the proceed of crime and recover the same at appropriate stage, in the exercise of its lawful authority, the Investigating Agency has rightly approached the banker of the petitioner for placing lien to the tune of Rs.32,09,907/- upon the account of the petitioner. According to learned State Counsel, since the lien upon the account of the petitioner has been placed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 106 of BNSS, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force that the procedure laid down under Section 107 of BNSS should have been followed before placing lien on the account of the petitioner. 27. In support of their arguments, the learned State Counsel, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as learned counsel for the complainant have referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following case:- i. State of Maharashtra V/s Tapas D. Neogy, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 232 And also the principles of law laid down by the Bombay High Court in the following case:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 14 i. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC Online Bom 4778 28. The record has been perused carefully. 29. With regard to authority of police officer to seize a property, the High Court of Kerala in the case of ‘Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd.’ (supra) has observed that even if it is established that there was money transaction between the accused and the company of the petitioner and it had to be presumed that the abovementioned money was part of proceed of money, even then without following the procedure enshrined under Section 107 of BNSS, the account could not have been frozen. 30. The High Court of Delhi in the case of ‘Malabar Gold and Diamonds Ltd.’ (supra), while dealing with similar situation, issued following directions:- “(i) Respondent No. 4 shall forthwith issue appropriate directions to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to defreeze the petitioners’ bank accounts. (ii) If any enforcement or investigating agency proposes to initiate or is conducting an investigation against the petitioners, it shall be at liberty to do so in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS, and the petitioners undertake to fully cooperate with such investigation. (iii) In the event of finding a positive and specific material indicating the petitioners’ complicity, Respondent No. 4 shall be at liberty to issue fresh directions, in accordance with law. 31. While dealing with the purpose, object and scope of Section 102 of CrPC (akin to Section 106 of BNSS), the High Court of Bombay in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 15 the case of ‘Geeta Kampani’ (supra), has observed that ‘at this stage, the object and purpose of the provisions contained in section 102 of the Code, deserve to be revisited. It is essentially a tool for investigation and collection of evidence to sustain the charge against the accused. Section 102 is neither intended to confer, nor a repository of, the power to seize the property for the purpose of its delivery to the person / victim whom the IO consider to be rightful owner. In the absence of a direct link between the seized property and the commission of the offences, to concede the power to the investigating agency to seize the property would amount to allowing the investigating agency to trench upon adjudicatory province and do compensatory justice’. 32. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed by the High Court of Bombay that ‘if the freezing of the account is allowed to continue till the conclusion of trial, it would amount to an order of attachment before judgment without the first informant satisfying the strict rigour’. 33. In the case of ‘Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal’ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that freezing of all bank accounts of Mutt and its connected bodies, merely on the ground that head of the said Mutt was involved in a murder case, is not proper. 34. In the case of ‘M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr.’ (supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a property not suspected of commission of offence, which is being investigated into by the police officer, cannot be seized. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 16 India, only the property covered under Section 102(1) of CrPC can be seized by the police officer. 35. As far as the scope of Section 102(1) of CrPC is concerned, it provides that ‘such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer’. 36. I have given my due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles of law laid down in the abovementioned judgments. 37. As far as the factual matrix of the present case is concerned, a careful perusal of the FIR, vis-à-vis the petition filed by the petitioner, shows that there are certain facts qua which there is no quarrel between the parties:- i. that FIR No.2 dated 01.01.2026 has been lodged in Police Station Sector-50, Gurugram with regard to commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; ii. that pursuant to lodging of abovementioned FIR, the investigation has been taken up by the police; iii. that the abovementioned FIR has been lodged at the instance of ‘M/s Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’; iv. that the basic allegations with regard to cheating and forgery are against the firms/companies belonging to ‘Rakesh Goel’, ‘Gaurav Goel’, ‘Amit Rai’ and other accused; v. that the petitioner Company is not a company owned by abovementioned persons; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 17 vi. that a sum of Rs.32,09,907/- was received by the petitioner firm in its account from ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Ltd’; and vii. that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency found that against a sum of Rs.32,09,907/- received by the petitioner, no documentary evidence has been produced with regard to supply of goods. 38. In the light of abovementioned admitted facts, if various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are examined, there appears to be two major points, which need determination in the present case:- i. Whether the police officer has got a right to place a lien on the bank account; and ii. Whether the abovementioned jurisdiction has been rightly exercised by the police officer in the present case. POINT NO.1 39. As far as this point of determination is concerned, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of ‘Teesta Atul Setalvad’ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the Investigating Officer can legitimately seize the bank account under Section 102 of BNSS, and that the suspicion entertained by the Investigating Officer has to be accepted. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after completion of Investigation, the aggrieved party can approach the appropriate Court to de-freeze the account. 40. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also observed that any property, as mentioned in Section 102(1) of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 18 CrPC, includes bank account creating suspicion about the commission of offence. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation has power to seize or prohibit operation of bank account of any person, which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of any offence. 41. While dealing with the scope of Section 102 CrPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Tapas D. Neogy’ (supra) has observed as under:- “Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be `property' within the meaning of said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is `property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 19 Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. 42. 42. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further observed that:- In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon.” 43. In view of abovementioned principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the present case if it is established that the Investigating Officer was having a reasonable doubt/suspicion with regard to the amount lying in the account of petitioner, that it was a proceed of crime, he had got an authority to issue a direction for placing lien thereupon. In this regard, Section 106(1) & (2) of BNSS provides as under:- “(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.” However, with regard to attachment, forfeiture or restoration of the property, Section 107(1) & (2) of BNSS provides as under:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 20 “(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 Judicial 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 Judicial 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.” 44. Here it shall not be out of place to look into the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’. ‘Proceed of crime’ has been defined under Section 111(c) of BNSS, which provides as under:- "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the value of any such property” 45. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned provisions of law provided by the Legislature, and the interpretation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Teesta Atul Setalvad’ and ‘Tapas D. Neogy’ (supra), it is hereby observed that it was well within the jurisdiction of the police officer to issue a direction for freezing of account of the petitioner as there was a doubt that the amount lying in the account of petitioner, to the extent of Rs.32,09,907/- was the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 21 proceeds of crime. The point of determination No.1 is hereby answered accordingly against the petitioner. POINT NO.2 46. As far as this point of determination is concerned, there are some situations, which are necessary to be looked into in the present case. First situation is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner firm was having a regular business dealing with firm, namely ‘M/s HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, and therefore, there is a possibility, wherein some amount of one firm is due towards the abovementioned account. But at the same time, there may be a situation, wherein if the abovementioned amount lying deposited in the account of petitioner is found to be proceeds of crime, on de-freezing the account of petitioner, the same may be withdrawn and at the time of final adjudication of the case there may be difficulty in recovering the abovementioned amount, despite that it was the proceeds of crime. 47. Thus, in order to harmonize the difficulty being faced by the petitioner, who may be found innocent at the time of final adjudication of the trial, and also to safeguard the rights of the complainant, who may be held entitled to receive the proceeds of crime, (which is at present lying in the freezed account of the petitioner) if the following arrangement is made, it will be a win-win situation for both, because on one hand the petitioner shall avail the advantage of utilizing the money for which the lien has been created and on the other hand, the rights of the complainant, who is claiming himself to be a victim of cheating, would be duly secured. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-4767-2026 (O&M) 22 48. In view of above, in my opinion, it shall be appropriate that a direction is issued for de-freezing of the account of the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner would furnish a security bonds equivalent to the amount freezed in his account, at the instance of respondent No.2. The point of determination No.2 is hereby answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 49. Taking into consideration the observations recorded on the abovementioned two points of determination, the present petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to remove the lien from the account of petitioner, on furnishing security bonds, by the petitioner, equivalent to the freezed amount, to the satisfaction of Jurisdiction Magistrate/trial Court. Once the requisite bonds are furnished and intimation is given by the Jurisdiction Magistrate/trial Court to the Investigating Agency, the lien placed by the respondent No.2 shall be withdrawn within a period of next three working days of the bank. 50. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document