HC Quashes police notice to bajaj finance for production of alleged stolen gold

Shimla, Oct 14

Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a police notice issued to Bajaj Finance Limited under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the production of gold ornaments allegedly stolen and subsequently pledged with the non-banking financial company (NBFC).

Justice Sandeep Sharma held that an NBFC cannot be compelled to produce pledged gold ornaments merely on the strength of a notice issued under Section 94 of the BNSS. The investigating agency must approach the competent court under Sections 106 and 107 of the Sanhita to seek appropriate directions for the production of property suspected to have been stolen or derived from criminal activity.

The Court also emphasised that the financial company’s interests as a pledgee must be protected and that it should be given an opportunity to explain its position before any appropriate order is passed.

The ruling came on a petition filed by Bajaj Finance Limited challenging the notice issued by the police. According to the case record, the company had advanced a loan to a borrower against gold ornaments and jewellery pledged as security. The ornaments were subsequently found to be stolen, and the borrower allegedly disclosed during the investigation that the jewellery had been pledged with the company.

The police subsequently issued a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS directing the company to produce the alleged stolen property. Challenging the notice, Bajaj Finance argued that the investigating agency could not compel it to surrender the pledged ornaments without following the procedure prescribed by law.

The State defended the action, contending that Section 94 could be invoked to secure the production of property connected with criminal activity. However, the High Court rejected this interpretation.

The Court observed that Section 94 primarily deals with the production of documents, electronic communications, communication devices and other things associated with such evidence. It does not provide the appropriate mechanism for securing property alleged to have been derived from criminal activity.

Also Read HPSEB at risk of losing Rs 550 Crore due to project delays, emp union urges swift action

Referring to Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS, the Court observed that these provisions specifically deal with property suspected to have been stolen and the attachment, forfeiture or restoration of proceeds of crime. The investigating agency must approach the competent court or Magistrate for appropriate directions.

The Court further observed that the competent court, while considering such an application, may issue notice to the person possessing the property, enabling that person to explain their position.

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice while granting liberty to the investigating agency to approach the competent court under the relevant provisions of law for seeking production of the alleged stolen ornaments.

The judgment was delivered on September 3, 2026, in CWP No. 11709 of 2026, Bajaj Finance Limited versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

About the Author

himachaleditor

Editor

View All Posts