Police Powers to Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (2025) ruled that police and investigating agencies are empowered to freeze bank accounts under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  (now Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in cases initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

What was the Background of State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (2025) Case? 

• The case involved allegations against police inspector Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar for amassing assets disproportionate to his known income during the period 2007-2017. 
• During the investigation, several Fixed Deposits held by his father, Anil Kumar Dey (the respondent), were frozen by the Anti-Corruption Branch under Section 102 CrPC. 
• The respondent challenged the freezing orders, arguing that attachment in Prevention of Corruption Act cases must follow only the special procedure under Section 18A of the PC Act. 
• The Calcutta High Court, relying on the observation in Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022), ordered the de-freezing of the accounts. 
• The High Court held that the PC Act is a complete code and therefore account-freezing under the CrPC is impermissible. 
• The State of West Bengal appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that the power of seizure under CrPC and attachment under the PC Act are separate and distinct powers that coexist and are not mutually exclusive. 
• The bench observed that investigators need not first resort to the special attachment procedure under Section 18A before acting under Section 102, as both statutory routes operate independently. 
• The Court noted that prompt freezing of suspected illicit funds is often essential to prevent dissipation of assets during investigation. 
• The Supreme Court rejected the respondent's reliance on Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka, holding that the observation regarding the PC Act being a complete code does not amount to a binding precedent under Article 141, as it was made without detailed analysis. 
• Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the freezing orders issued by the police and dismissed the challenge raised by the accused public servant.

What is Section 102 CrPC? 

About: 

• Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the power of police officers to seize certain property during investigation. 
• This provision has now been replaced by Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which came into effect on July 1, 2024. 
• The section empowers police officers to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. 
• It is a general seizure power available to investigating officers at the preliminary stage of investigation. 
• The provision aims to prevent dissipation of assets and preserve evidence during the course of criminal investigations. 

Section 106 BNSS (Corresponding Provision): 

• Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the successor provision to Section 102 CrPC. 
• The provision maintains the same essential powers as Section 102 CrPC, allowing police officers to seize property suspected to be involved in offences. 
• BNSS represents the modernization of criminal procedure laws in India, replacing the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure. 
• The seizure powers under Section 106 BNSS apply to all criminal investigations, including cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

Section 102 CrPC and Bank Account Freezing: 

• The Supreme Court clarified that Section 102 CrPC empowers police to freeze bank accounts in corruption cases as part of their general seizure powers. 
• This power operates independently and is not displaced by the special attachment mechanism provided under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• Both the general seizure power under CrPC and the special attachment power under the PC Act can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. 
• Investigators need not first resort to the special attachment procedure under Section 18A before acting under Section 102 CrPC. 
• Prompt freezing of suspected illicit funds under Section 102 is essential to prevent dissipation of assets during investigation. 
• The effect of seizure under Section 102 and attachment under Section 18A may appear similar (property being taken into custody), but the powers themselves are separate and distinct. 
• This ruling provides investigative agencies with an effective mechanism to act swiftly at the preliminary stage of corruption investigations without being restricted to the special procedures under the PC Act.