New Delhi, Dec. 10 - A rather tense courtroom witnessed long exchanges on Tuesday as the Supreme Court examined whether police can freeze an accused person’s bank accounts in corruption cases without following the formal attachment procedure under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra finally settled the issue, though not without a few sharp observations aimed at the interpretation adopted by the Calcutta High Court.
Background
The case began with allegations that a West Bengal police officer, Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, had amassed wealth far exceeding his known income. During investigation, officers froze several fixed deposits held in the name of his 93-year-old father, Anil Kumar Dey, suspecting they were funded through illicit earnings.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Faulty Trap Procedures While Granting Bail to Labour Officer Accused
The trial court refused to unfreeze these accounts, citing incomplete investigation. However, in October 2024, the Calcutta High Court reversed the order, stating that freezing under Section 102 CrPC was illegal since attachment under the PC Act must follow a special statutory route. The State of West Bengal appealed, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court.
Inside Court No. 4, the State argued that freezing is merely a temporary seizure to secure evidence, while attachment is a formal judicial process - both distinct, not mutually exclusive. The respondent countered that the police misused Section 102 CrPC to achieve what is essentially attachment, bypassing the safeguards embedded in the PC Act.
Read also:- Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order in sensitive POCSO matter, questions absence
Court’s Observations
The bench spent considerable time dissecting the meaning of “seizure” and “attachment”, comparing them across statutes such as the PC Act, CrPC, Income Tax Act, and PMLA. At one point, Justice Karol remarked, “The two cannot be painted with the same brush merely because the end result looks similar.”
In a significant remark, the bench observed, “Section 102 CrPC gives wide but purpose-oriented power to police - meant to aid investigation, not to replace attachment proceedings.”
The Court also clarified that its earlier decision in Ratan Babulal Lath, widely cited for the view that the PC Act is a “code in itself”, cannot be treated as binding precedent because the judgment did not discuss facts or legal reasoning in detail.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses NCDC's Tax Deduction Claim, Says Dividend and Deposit Interest Not
Further, the judges emphasised that seizure under Section 102 need not always precede a magistrate’s approval instantly, noting that “forthwith” must be read with practical flexibility.
Through the hearing, the bench repeatedly highlighted that a police officer’s urgent freezing of accounts is not the same as formal attachment, which requires a multi-step, time-consuming judicial process.
Decision
In the final order, the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court ruling, holding that the police were legally empowered to freeze the respondent’s fixed deposits under Section 102 CrPC, even though proceedings were under the PC Act.
Read also:- Supreme Court Replaces Arbitrator After Missed Deadline, Says Mandate Ended Automatically
However, the Court acknowledged that the investigation is now complete and a chargesheet has already been filed. Therefore, continuing the freezing indefinitely may not be necessary.
The bench ordered that:
- If the frozen funds were already released due to the High Court order, the respondent must re-deposit the amount or furnish a bank guarantee of the same value within three weeks.
- If the funds have not yet been released, normal statutory remedies remain open before the appropriate court.
With that, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Dey
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5373 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1003/2025)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Prevention of Corruption Act – Freezing of Bank Accounts)
Decision Date: 10 December 2025
