Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 23 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Puja Hari (wife of accused Bikash Hari) vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.; represented by senior advocates Ayan Bhattacharya, Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri, Upasana Banerjee, Abir Dalui.
  • Opposite party: State represented by senior advocates Sandipan Gangully, Sabyasachi Banerjee, Anirban Dutta, Dwip Raj Basu.
  • Background: A written complaint lodged on 20 May 2025 at Sakrail Police Station by Manoj Agarwal, representative of Utkarsh India Limited, alleged that Shyam Kumar Gupta of Shree Shyam Road Safety and sole proprietor Lalita Devi entered a business relationship in 2020, after which ledger discrepancies were discovered for the period 16 Apr 2022 to 22 Feb 2024.
  • Investigation: Sakrail PS registered Case No. 433/2025 under IPC §§420, 426, 120B, 34 against Bikash Hari and company employees. On 10 July 2025 the investigating officer prayed for attachment of properties under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023; the court declined as the accused were not yet in custody.
  • On 24 September 2025, after arrests, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, ordered attachment of five properties – three jointly owned by Bikash Hari and Puja Hari and two owned solely by Puja Hari – invoking BNSS §107, without serving the mandatory notice under §§107(2)‑(3).
  • Petitioner's grounds of challenge: (a) She was not an accused yet her properties were attached; (b) No notice was served as required; (c) Magistrate incorrectly held her to be absconding, denying her right of audience.
  • Legal provisions: BNSS §107 outlines a four‑step procedure – notice, 14‑day period, opportunity to be heard, and proof that the property is proceeds of crime. Ex‑parte attachment is permissible only when notice would defeat the object of attachment and must be rare.
  • The judgment reproduced the full text of BNSS §107 (sub‑sections 1‑8) and analyzed the statutory requirements, emphasizing the need for a “reason to believe” (higher than “reason to suspect”) before attachment, citing Supreme Court decisions (Arvind Kejriwal Vs ED, 2025; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs Union of India, 2023) and constitutional protections under Article 300‑A.
  • The court highlighted that the lower court’s reliance on approval of the Commissioner of Police as a “technical issue” and its failure to serve notice violated BNSS provisions and the petitioner’s constitutional right to property.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court set aside the attachment order dated 24 September 2025 (GR No. 2801 of 2025) on the ground of procedural non‑compliance with BNSS §§107(2)‑(3).
  • The court directed that the investigating authority may initiate a fresh attachment process, strictly complying with BNSS, within four weeks from the date of this judgment.
  • Any fresh prayer under BNSS §§107(2)‑(3) will be disposed of by the trial court in accordance with the law as discussed.
  • The connected application was also disposed of accordingly.
  • Parties may obtain certified photocopies of the judgment upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Attachment Procedure, BNSS Compliance, Property Rights