The Calcutta High Court has quashed an order attaching five properties belonging to a woman who was not named as an accused in a criminal case, holding that the mandatory safeguards under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, were not followed.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that property attachment powers must be exercised with caution because they directly affect an individual's constitutional right to property.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a complaint lodged in May 2025 by a representative of Utkarsh India Limited alleging financial irregularities in business dealings with another entity. Based on the complaint, Sakrail Police Station registered a case against several persons, including Bikash Hari.
During the investigation, police sought attachment of certain properties under Section 107 BNSS, which permits attachment of assets believed to be derived from criminal activity.
In September 2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, allowed attachment of five properties. Three of those properties were jointly owned by accused Bikash Hari and his wife Puja Hari, while two belonged exclusively to Puja Hari.
Puja Hari challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that she was never made an accused and was not served any notice before her properties were attached.
Court's Observations
Examining Section 107 BNSS, the High Court noted that the law requires a court to issue notice to the affected person, grant fourteen days to respond, provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and then determine whether the property can be treated as proceeds of crime.
Justice Mukherjee found that none of these safeguards had been followed in Puja Hari's case.
“The petitioner who is the owner of the concerned properties in question was not intimated through any notice,”
the Court noted while observing that she was denied an opportunity to present her case.
The Court also criticized the trial court for treating her as an absconding person despite the fact that she had not even been named as an accused.
High Court Warns Against Casual Use of Section 107 BNSS
The judgment contains extensive observations on the newly introduced attachment mechanism under BNSS.
The Court emphasized that attachment of property is not meant to become a recovery tool during criminal investigations. It explained that authorities must have a genuine
“reason to believe”
that a property is connected to criminal activity before seeking attachment.
Justice Mukherjee observed,
“Indiscriminate use of such power without application of mind may cause serious disaster to the constitutional right of property.”
The Court further stressed that approval from senior police officers under Section 107 cannot be treated as a routine formality. Both investigating officers and courts must independently examine whether the legal requirements are satisfied.
The judgment also cautioned that ex parte attachment orders should remain an exception and not become the norm.
Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the Calcutta High Court set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 24 September 2025 attaching the properties.
However, the Court clarified that investigating authorities remain free to initiate fresh attachment proceedings within four weeks, provided they strictly comply with the requirements of Section 107 BNSS, including issuance of notice and an opportunity of hearing to affected persons.
With these directions, the Court disposed of the revision petition and the connected application.
Case Details:
Case Title: Puja Hari v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 4810 of 2025
Judge: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Decision Date: 23 June 2026
