Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to criminal petitions filed by the State of Karnataka challenging orders passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 04-04-2026 in I.A.Nos.I, II and III in Crime No.25 of 2026. The respondent company, JAR Gold Retail Private Limited, an e-commerce seller of gold registered under the Companies Act, 2013, faced a crime registered under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The company had earlier challenged the crime registration in Writ Petition No.5968 of 2026 before the High Court, which dismissed the petition on 04-03-2026; the Apex Court declined to entertain the Special Leave Petition against that order, making it final. Subsequently, the company filed applications under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the Sessions Court seeking release of seized gold and silver articles, defreezing of bank accounts, and opening of premises that were closed pursuant to the crime registration. The Sessions Court allowed these applications, directing release of the seized articles and defreezing accounts. Aggrieved, the State filed three criminal petitions under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, praying to set aside the orders. During the pendency of these petitions, the High Court passed interim orders on 16-04-2026 and 27-04-2026, staying the show cause notice issued by the Sessions Court and the release of items, while allowing defreezing of accounts only for payment of salaries, GST and statutory payments. The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Sections 106 and 107 BNSS. Section 106 BNSS corresponds to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requiring information to the Magistrate about any seizure or freezing of property. Section 107 BNSS is a newly introduced provision that requires prior permission of the Magistrate for attachment of property. The State argued that freezing of bank accounts falls under Section 106 and only requires subsequent information, while the respondent contended that freezing is akin to attachment and must comply with Section 107, requiring prior permission; non-compliance would vitiate the freezing. The Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court submitted that Sections 106 and 107 operate in different fields and that debit freezing is not an attachment requiring prior permission; other High Court judgments and a coordinate Bench had interpreted Section 107 without considering Section 106. The judgment text available is incomplete and does not record a final decision or ratio decidendi. The Court reserved orders on 24-06-2026 and pronounced on 10-08-2026, but the extracted portion ends before the Court's analysis and conclusion.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Release of Seized Property - Sections 497, 503 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Applications by accused for release of gold and silver articles seized during search in Crime No.25/2026 allowed by Sessions Court despite High Court's prior dismissal of challenge to crime registration - State filed petitions under Section 528 BNSS seeking to set aside release orders - Court noted that Sessions Court appeared to have overstepped jurisdiction by observing confusion about crime registration after High Court had upheld registration - Interim stay granted on release and show cause notice; bank accounts defrozen only for salaries and statutory payments (Paras 2-4). B) Criminal Procedure - Freezing of Bank Accounts - Sections 106, 107 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Interpretation of new Section 107 BNSS versus Section 106 BNSS regarding requirement of prior Magistrate permission for freezing - State argued freezing was under Section 106 requiring only information; respondent argued freezing akin to attachment under Section 107 requiring prior permission - Court considered arguments from Amicus Curiae that Sections 106 and 107 operate in different fields and debit freezing is not attachment - No final determination recorded in available text (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Procedure - Distinction Between Seizure and Attachment - Section 106 and 107 BNSS - Attachment is judicial proceeding while debit freezing may not be; Section 106 BNSS corresponds to Section 102 CrPC and only mandates information to Magistrate after seizure - Respondent contended non-compliance with Section 107 vitiates freezing; Amicus pointed out that High Court judgments did not consider interplay with Section 106 - Matter required interpretation of newly introduced provision (Paras 5-7). D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction and Finality of Orders - High Court's earlier order in Writ Petition No.5968/2026 upheld crime registration and became final after Apex Court declined SLP - Sessions Court could not revisit validity of crime registration in release applications - State sought quashing of release orders as contrary to law (Paras 2, 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Sessions Court under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS for release of seized articles and defreezing of bank accounts are legally valid, particularly considering the interpretation of Sections 106 and 107 BNSS regarding bank account freezing.
Law Points
- Interplay between Sections 106 and 107 BNSS determines whether bank account freezing is mere seizure requiring intimation under Section 106 or attachment requiring prior permission under Section 107
- Section 107 BNSS mandates prior Magistrate permission for freezing
- while Section 106 only requires information after seizure
- distinction between seizure and attachment in criminal jurisprudence
- Section 106 BNSS corresponds to Section 102 CrPC
- freezing of bank accounts may be akin to attachment.
