Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 106
Power of police officer to seize certain property
(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.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same: Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, 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.
Why this exists
This provision descends from Section 102 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and reflects a long-standing need to let police act quickly when they come across stolen goods or suspicious property—without waiting for a court order—while still keeping courts in the loop so the process isn't misused. The BNSS reworded it and added a clearer mechanism (via the proviso) for disposing of cheap, perishable seized items quickly, avoiding waste and storage burdens on police stations.
How courts read it
Under the equivalent CrPC provision, courts clarified important limits. In State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999), the Supreme Court held that 'property' under this power includes bank accounts, allowing police to freeze suspect funds during investigation. Later, in Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot 'seize' immovable property (like land or buildings) under this section—at most they can restrict its transfer—because physical seizure of immovable property doesn't make practical sense the way it does for movable goods. These interpretations are expected to guide how the BNSS provision is applied too, though courts will need to confirm this under the new law.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can permanently keep or sell any property they seize.
Fact: Except for the narrow case of cheap, perishable goods with an unknown owner, seized property must be reported to a Magistrate, and its final disposal (return, auction, evidence use) is decided by the court, not by the police alone. - Myth: This section lets police seize houses or land just like they seize stolen goods.
Fact: Courts interpreting the equivalent CrPC provision (Nevada Properties, 2019) held that immovable property cannot be physically 'seized' under this kind of power; police can at most prevent its transfer, not take possession of land or buildings.