Bank Account Of Any Of The Relatives Of An Accused Can Be Seized U/S 102 CrPC: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh...
Seizure of Bank Accounts of Relatives of an Accused under Section 102 CrPC
1. Legal Provision: Section 102 of CrPC
Section 102 CrPC empowers a police officer or other person lawfully empowered to investigate a cognizable offence to seize any property which has been stolen, or which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under suspicious circumstances in possession of any person, or which may be reasonably suspected to have been used for committing any offence.
The Section aims to prevent concealment, destruction or transfer of evidence or property connected to a crime.
2. Context of Seizing Bank Accounts
In financial crimes, corruption, or economic offences, bank accounts (including those of relatives) may be used to park, transfer, or launder illicit money.
Investigating agencies often seek to seize such accounts to preserve the trail of the alleged crime and prevent dissipation of assets.
3. Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court’s Observation
The High Court observed that the bank account of any relative of the accused can be seized under Section 102 CrPC, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the account is linked to the offence.
This is based on the principle that relatives’ accounts may be used as conduits or hiding places for proceeds of crime.
The Court clarified that mere relationship is not enough; there must be a nexus or reasonable grounds to believe that the account is connected to the offence.
The seizure must be done cautiously, respecting the right to privacy and legitimate use of accounts.
4. Legal Principles and Safeguards
Reasonable suspicion or nexus: Seizure must be justified by facts indicating connection with crime.
Proportionality: Avoid undue harassment to innocent relatives.
Due process: Proper procedure must be followed; seizure must be recorded, and property inventoried.
Right to challenge: Affected persons can seek judicial review of the seizure.
5. Relevant Case Law
✅ State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2014) 7 SCC 392
The Supreme Court held that property can be seized under Section 102 CrPC if it is suspected to be involved in the offence.
The Court emphasized reasonableness and bona fide investigation.
✅ Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (1998) 7 SCC 22
Bank accounts can be frozen/seized if linked with offences, but there must be credible material or reasonable suspicion.
✅ Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (2019) 1 SCC 434
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of search and seizure powers under various statutes including CrPC.
Emphasized balance between investigation and privacy rights.
✅ M.K. Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) SCC Online Mad 12376
Madras High Court held that bank accounts of relatives can be seized if there is material to show nexus with accused.
Mere suspicion or relationship is insufficient.
6. Practical Implications
Investigating agencies can target relatives' accounts if:
They are used as benami accounts (in someone else’s name).
They show sudden unexplained credits/debits linked to crime.
They facilitate money laundering or concealment of assets.
The authorities must maintain records of seizure and allow affected persons to challenge seizure orders in courts.
7. Conclusion
The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court’s position reinforces the investigative powers under Section 102 CrPC.
It allows seizure of relatives’ bank accounts, subject to reasonable suspicion and nexus with the crime.
The principle strikes a balance between effective investigation and protection of rights.
Courts have consistently stressed fair procedure and safeguards in such seizures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments