CrPC 102 vs BNSS 106: Police Seizure of Property Explained (2026)

In India, Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024 in the same words, bar renumbered cross-references. Section 105 requires taking property under Chapter VII to be video-recorded (on a reading, including s.106 seizures); Section 107 adds court-ordered attachment of proceeds of crime.

At a glance

Old section	New section	What it does	Change
102(1)	106(1)	Any police officer may seize property alleged or suspected to be stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of an offence	Identical
102(2)	106(2)	Subordinate officer reports the seizure forthwith to the officer in charge	Identical
102(3)	106(3)	Report forthwith to the Magistrate; custody to any person on a bond in three situations	Identical
102(3), proviso	106(3), proviso	Auction of perishable property worth under ₹500 on SP's orders	Minor edit — ss.457, 458 → ss.503, 504
—	105	Audio-video recording of search or taking possession of property under Chapter VII or s.185	New (outside s.106)
—	107	Attachment, forfeiture or restoration of proceeds of crime by a Court or Magistrate on police application	New (outside s.106)

Section 106 is procedural: no punishment and no First Schedule classification. It sits in Chapter VII, "Processes to compel the production of things", Part D (Miscellaneous). Commencement: 1 July 2024, S.O. 848(E) of 23 February 2024.

What changed

Identical — the power (s.106(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."
Identical — reporting (s.106(2)–(3)). A subordinate "shall forthwith report the seizure" to the officer in charge; every officer seizing under sub-section (1) "shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction". Section 106 sets no outer time limit — unlike s.185(5), which now says "forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours" for search records.
Identical — custody on bond (s.106(3)). Where the property "cannot be conveniently transported to the Court", or there is "difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody", or "continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation", the officer may give custody to any person who executes a bond to produce it and obey the Court's further orders. The second and third situations were inserted into s.102(3) CrPC by Act 25 of 2005 (w.e.f. 23 June 2006); sub-section (3) itself dates from Act 45 of 1978 (w.e.f. 18 December 1978).
Minor edit — the proviso. Perishable property "subject to speedy and natural decay", whose owner is "unknown or absent" and whose value is "less than five hundred rupees", may be sold by auction under the Superintendent of Police's orders, and "sections 503 and 504" (formerly "sections 457 and 458") apply to the net proceeds. The ₹500 threshold is unchanged.
New, outside s.106 — Section 105. "The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone", and the recording must be forwarded "without delay" to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
New, outside s.106 — Section 107. A police officer investigating an offence who has reason to believe property is derived from criminal activity may, with the approval of the Superintendent or Commissioner of Police, apply to the Court or Magistrate for attachment (s.107(1)); the Court issues a fourteen-day show-cause notice (s.107(2)) and may attach after hearing (s.107(4)).

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Section 102(3) CrPC, proviso (extract): "it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale."

Section 106(1) and (3) BNSS (extract): "(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. … (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction".

Section 106(3) BNSS, proviso (extract): "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."

How it works — the steps

Who (s.106(1)). "Any police officer"; the section states no rank requirement.
What (s.106(1)). Two classes: property "alleged or suspected to have been stolen", and property "found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence".
Recording the seizure (s.105). On a reading of s.105, which covers taking possession of property "under this Chapter" (Chapter VII, where s.106 sits), taking possession of property, including preparing and signing the seizure list, is recorded on audio-video electronic means and forwarded without delay to a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
Internal report (s.106(2)). A subordinate officer reports forthwith to the officer in charge of the police station.
Report to the Magistrate (s.106(3)). Every seizing officer reports forthwith to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
Interim custody (s.106(3)). In the three listed situations, the officer may hand the property to any person on a bond to produce it before the Court and comply with its orders.
Perishables (proviso). Low-value perishable property whose owner is unknown or absent may be auctioned on the Superintendent of Police's orders.
What the Magistrate does next (ss.503–505). When a seizure is reported and the property is not produced in an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may order its disposal, delivery to the person entitled or custody (s.503(1)); if the owner is unknown, a proclamation calls for claims within six months (s.503(2)); unclaimed property may be placed at the State Government's disposal (s.504(1)), with an appeal under s.504(2). Section 505 separately allows the Magistrate to order sale of perishable property or property worth less than ten thousand rupees.
Custody pending trial (s.497). Once the property is produced before a Criminal Court or Magistrate, s.497 governs custody and disposal pending the conclusion of the investigation, inquiry or trial.

What this means in practice

For the person whose property is seized. The police must report the seizure to the Magistrate; the owner can seek custody or delivery of the property under s.497 (once it is produced before the Court or Magistrate) or s.503 (where the seizure is reported and the property is not produced). A bank account freeze is a "seizure" under this section (Tapas D. Neogy, below), so the same reporting duty applies. The account must have a direct link with the offence being investigated.
For the investigating officer. On a reading of s.105, record the taking of possession and forward the recording without delay; report to the Magistrate forthwith under s.106(3). The Supreme Court's reading in Shento Varghese (below) is that delay does not void the seizure, but an unexplained delay can lead to departmental action. Do not use s.106 to take over land or buildings (Nevada Properties, below); for proceeds of crime, apply to the court under s.107.
For the advocate. Test three things, which Shento Varghese lists as the grounds on which a seizure may be challenged: whether the officer had jurisdiction, whether the item is "property" within the section, and whether it could have given rise to suspicion of an offence (para 13). Then check the date of the report to the Magistrate and whether a s.105 recording exists.
Documents such as passports. The police may seize a passport under the section but, on Suresh Nanda (below), may not retain or impound it; impounding is for the passport authority under the Passports Act, 1967.

Judgments that still matter

Section 106(1)–(3) repeats s.102(1)–(3) CrPC word for word. On a reading of the text, judgments construing those words remain relevant to s.106.

State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, [1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 609 (1999 INSC 417), decided 16 September 1999. G.B. Pattanaik J., for a bench with N. Santosh Hegde J., noted that the two pre-conditions for s.102(1) are that the thing "must be property" and that there must be "suspicion of commission of any offence" in respect of it. The Court held that "the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102" and that an investigating officer "can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence" under investigation. It held the contrary High Court views incorrect and allowed the appeal, but did not interfere on the facts because the accounts had already been operated. Why it matters now: it is the basis for bank-account freezes under the same words in s.106(1).

Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1212 (2008 INSC 98), decided 24 January 2008. P.P. Naolekar and Markandey Katju JJ. distinguished seizure from impounding: "seizure is done at a particular moment of time", while retention after seizure "amounts to impounding" (para 12). The police may seize a passport under s.102 but have no power to retain or impound it; they must send it to the passport authority with a letter stating why it deserves impounding under s.10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 (para 13). Retention by the C.B.I. was "clearly illegal" (para 14). The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed return of the passport within a week, leaving the respondent free to approach the passport authorities (para 16). Why it matters now: s.106(1) confers the same power of seizure, and nothing in it confers a power to impound.

Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [2019] 15 S.C.R. 223 (2019 INSC 1077), decided 24 September 2019. On a reference to three judges, Sanjiv Khanna J., for himself, Ranjan Gogoi C.J.I. and Deepak Gupta J., held that the power under s.102 "would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property" (para 21). Documents of title may be seized, but s.102 does not let the police dispossess a person in occupation (para 20). The Court also held that Tapas D. Neogy did not decide whether immovable property falls within "any property" (para 11). Deepak Gupta J. added a supplementing opinion reasoning, among other things, that theft is possible only of movable property and that s.102(3) contemplates property that can be produced in court. Why it matters now: s.106 BNSS uses the same words; the new s.107 route, by which a court may attach proceeds of crime, sits alongside it.

Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, [2024] 6 S.C.R. 409 (2024 INSC 407), decided 13 May 2024. Aravind Kumar J., for a bench with P.S. Narasimha J., held that "the validity of the power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. is not dependent on the compliance with the duty prescribed" in s.102(3), and that the reporting duty "is neither a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising the power to seize" nor a condition of it (paras 13–14). A seizure may be challenged on jurisdiction, on whether the item is "property", or on whether it could have raised suspicion, and there must be a "direct or close link" between the property and the offence (para 13). "Forthwith" means "as soon as may be", "with reasonable speed and expedition" and "without any unnecessary delay" (para 22). Where delay is unexplained or the officer acted with "deliberate disregard/ wanton negligence", the Magistrate may direct departmental action, but the seizure is not vitiated (para 24). The Court set aside the High Court's reasoning but did not re-freeze the defrozen accounts; it directed the accused to execute bonds to deposit the withdrawn amount if convicted, and allowed the appeals in part (paras 27–28). Why it matters now: s.106(3) keeps "forthwith" with no outer limit, so this construction governs the new section on a reading of the text.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that any investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, a seizure in an investigation pending on that date is governed by s.102 CrPC, and one in an investigation begun on or after that date by s.106 BNSS together, on a reading of its text, with s.105. Since the words of the two sections are the same, the practical difference lies in s.105 (recording) and s.107 (attachment). See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 102 CrPC? Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from 1 July 2024. Its text is the same except that the proviso on perishable property now refers to sections 503 and 504 BNSS instead of sections 457 and 458 CrPC.

What property can the police seize under Section 106 BNSS? Under Section 106(1) BNSS 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. The officer must report the seizure forthwith to the officer in charge if he is a subordinate (Section 106(2)) and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction (Section 106(3)).

Can the police freeze a bank account under Section 106 BNSS? Section 106(1) BNSS repeats the words of Section 102(1) CrPC. In State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, [1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 609, the Supreme Court held that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is 'property' under Section 102 and that a police officer investigating an offence can seize or prohibit its operation if the assets have direct links with the offence. On a reading of the text, that construction carries over to Section 106.

Can the police seize a house or land under Section 106 BNSS? In Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [2019] 15 S.C.R. 223 (para 21), a three-judge bench held that the power under Section 102 CrPC does not include the power to attach, seize and seal immovable property, though title documents may be seized. Section 106 BNSS uses the same words. Section 107 BNSS separately allows a Court or Magistrate, on a police application, to attach property that is proceeds of crime.

What happens if the police do not report a seizure to the Magistrate forthwith? In Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, [2024] 6 S.C.R. 409, the Supreme Court held that the validity of a seizure under Section 102(1) CrPC does not depend on compliance with the reporting duty in Section 102(3) (para 13). The Magistrate should examine whether the report was sent forthwith and, if there is no reasonable explanation for delay, may direct departmental action against the officer, but the seizure is not vitiated (para 24).

Can property seized by the police be given back before the trial ends? Under Section 106(3) BNSS, where the property cannot conveniently be transported to court, proper accommodation is difficult, or its continued retention is not considered necessary for investigation, the officer may give custody to any person who executes a bond to produce it before the Court and obey its orders. The Court or Magistrate may also order custody pending trial under Section 497 BNSS, and Section 503 governs orders on seizures reported to a Magistrate.

Must a police seizure be video-recorded under the BNSS? Section 105 BNSS requires the process of conducting a search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under Chapter VII or Section 185, including the seizure list and its signing by witnesses, to be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone, and forwarded without delay to a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Section 106 sits in Chapter VII, so on a reading of the text Section 105 applies to seizures under it.

Sources

Acts and sections read: BNSS 2023 ss.105, 106, 107, 497, 503, 504, 505, 531 and the Chapter VII heading (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250884); CrPC 1973 ss.102 and 451, with the footnotes recording Act 45 of 1978 and Act 25 of 2005 (original India Code text).
Judgments read (Veritect judgment corpus, full text): State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (S_1999_2_609_620_EN.md); Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. (2008_1_1212_1220_EN.md); Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2019_15_223_257_EN.md); Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024_6_409_428_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 102 CrPC vs Section 106 BNSS — Power of Police Officer to Seize Certain Property