Police Authority to Seize Property and Travel Documents Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

The landscape of criminal procedure in India has undergone significant transformation with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). For foreign citizens residing or visiting India, a common concern arises when they face criminal investigations: what powers do the police truly possess to seize personal documents, specifically a passport? The question of whether there exists any provision—other than Section 106 of the BNSS—that empowers a police officer to seize a passport is a critical legal inquiry that balances investigative necessity against individual rights.

Understanding the Legal Framework of Section 106

Section 106 of the BNSS is the primary statutory provision that governs the power of a police officer to seize property during the course of an investigation. It essentially states that any police officer may seize property which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which is found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 3390 and 2026 0 Supreme(AP) 540.

The intent behind this provision is purely investigative and preservatory. It is designed to secure evidence that might otherwise be destroyed, hidden, or dissipated before the matter reaches the court. As established in legal interpretations, the power is to be exercised when it is necessary for the purposes of investigation, preservation of evidence, and eventual restitution 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 3390.

Regarding the specific question of whether there is an alternative provision authorizing the seizure of a passport, the legal consensus under the current framework is that no such broad, separate power exists. Section 106 is the primary avenue, and even then, its scope is restricted to property linked to the investigation.

Seizure versus Attachment: A Vital Distinction

One of the most frequent points of confusion in criminal proceedings is the distinction between seizure and attachment. This is where many legal challenges arise.

• Seizure (Section 106 BNSS): This is an investigative act performed by the police. The officer does not require prior judicial approval to seize the item, but they must report the action forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4821 and 2026 0 Supreme(All) 332.
• Attachment (Section 107 BNSS): This is an adjudicatory act. It is a more formal process intended to secure the proceeds of a crime and requires an explicit order from a competent Magistrate 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4821 and 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 219.

Courts have emphasized that police officers are investigators, not adjudicators. In cases concerning financial assets—often a parallel to the logic used for passports—the courts have clarified that the police cannot unilaterally impose blanket freezes. When investigating agencies act as if they have the power of attachment without the requisite judicial supervision, they risk violating fundamental rights to livelihood and property 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4656 and 2026 0 Supreme(AP) 1122.

Can a Passport be Seized?

The courts have historically maintained a nuanced stance on the retention of travel documents. While a police officer may physically take possession of a passport as evidence—similar to seizing a bank account under Section 106—this does not automatically translate into the power to impound or permanently retain it as a tool to restrict movement indefinitely.

The Supreme Court of India has previously observed that while the police may have the right to seize a passport during an investigation, the power to impound is distinct and often rests with other authorities under the Passports Act, 1967. A seizure under Section 106 is intended for evidentiary purposes. If the passport is not required for the investigation, or if the police attempt to use it as a de facto exit-control measure without judicial backing, the action may be subject to legal challenge 2019 0 Supreme(AP) 242.

Limitations on Investigative Powers

The judicial trend under the BNSS has been to curb the unbridled exercise of police power. Several high courts have recently quashed orders where police attempted to freeze bank accounts or seize property without following the strict proportionality and procedural guidelines set out in the law 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1497 and 2026 0 Supreme(AP) 1118.

Key limitations include:1. Requirement of Nexus: The seized item (or passport) must have a direct nexus to the alleged crime. A blanket seizure without demonstrating how the item is essential for proving the offense is often considered an abuse of process 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4656 and 2026 0 Supreme(All) 199.2. Reporting Obligation: Any seizure must be reported immediately to the Magistrate. Failure to do so undermines the legality of the seizure 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 3390 and 2026 0 Supreme(Kar) 336.3. Proportionality: The action must be necessary. If a less intrusive measure can achieve the investigative goal, the drastic measure of seizure may be viewed as irrational 2026 0 Supreme(AP) 1122.

Conclusion

In summary, there is no independent provision within the BNSS that empowers a police officer to seize a passport of a foreign citizen outside the scope of Section 106. The power granted under Section 106 is specific to the preservation of evidence and does not grant law enforcement the authority to act as final adjudicators of property rights or travel freedom.

If a passport has been seized, it must be justified as a necessary step for an ongoing investigation, and the procedural requirements, such as notifying the jurisdictional Magistrate, must be strictly followed. Because individual cases can vary significantly based on the specific facts and the nature of the alleged offence, it is always advisable to consult with a qualified legal professional to assess the proportionality and legality of any such action. The courts continue to reinforce that the balance between state investigation and individual liberty must be maintained through strict adherence to the statutory framework.