Authority: Calcutta High Court (Criminal Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

Order Date: 23.06.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Piyush Sharma, representing Sastha Sunder Health Buddy Ltd, versus the State of West Bengal & Anr. (opposite parties identified as OP No.2 and OP No.3, namely Taraknath Bhattacharjee and Satarupa Sarkar).
  • Allegations: Misappropriation of cash exceeding ₹15 crore and medicines worth ₹93 lakh by the opposite parties, alleged to be proceeds of crime under Baruipur P.S. case no. 369 of 2025, invoking sections 318(4), 316(5), 314, 338, 61, 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
  • Procedural History:
  • Application filed by the investigating officer (IO) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, for attachment under section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Surkhsha Sanhita (BNSS) and direction to Canara Bank, Bally branch to freeze a term deposit.
  • Notice served to OP No.2 on 21.04.2025; a second application filed on 19.05.2025 for attachment of OP No.3 (Satarupa Sarkar) with notice on 22.05.2025.
  • Charge‑sheet filed on 29.05.2025 (No. 829 of 2025). Magistrate’s order dated 09.06.2025 attached the properties under section 107 BNSS.
  • Trial Court Order (excerpt): The magistrate rejected the accused’s request for additional time, noting that both accused failed to appear or file show‑cause replies, and therefore ordered attachment of the seized and identified properties, to be held until further orders.
  • Revisionary Challenge: The petitioners argued that the attachment violated constitutional right to property, that the IO’s prayer was based on mere assumption, and that the magistrate failed to serve notice to the lessor of lease‑hold properties as required by sub‑sections (2) and (3) of section 107 BNSS.
  • Revisional Court Reasoning:
  • Highlighted the distinction between “assumption” and “reason to believe,” noting the statutory language requires a concrete basis, not mere apprehension.
  • Observed that the magistrate did not serve notice to the lessor, a statutory requirement, rendering the attachment order unsustainable.
  • Cited extensive jurisprudence on the meaning of “reason to believe” across criminal, tax, and forfeiture law, emphasizing the need for a rational nexus and objective material basis.
  • Concluded that the trial court’s attachment was based on suspicion/assumption and procedural defect, thus should be set aside.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional bench dismissed CRR 4389 of 2025, setting aside the attachment order dated 09.06.2025.
  • The court clarified that the dismissal does not preclude the investigating authority from filing a fresh prayer for attachment, provided it complies strictly with subsection (1) of section 107 BNSS, within a period of 30 days.
  • The court directed that any fresh application will be dealt with in accordance with the law as discussed.

Topics: Attachment Order, BNSS Section 107, Reason to Believe