Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Sankhla vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13176) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13176]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5987/2026
Dinesh Sankhla S/o Bhiya Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Bhakto Ka Bera, Balesar Satta, Balesar Satan, Jodhpur
Rajasthan. 342023.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home Department
Jaipur.
2. National Cyber Crime Portal, New Delhi.
3. Director, Jio Payment Bank Limited, Resistered Officer
3Rd Floor Maker Chambers 4 222, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijesh
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 19/03/2026
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
(i)That by an appropriate writ, order and direction, to respondents direct the de-freeze the petitioners account in Jio Payment Bank Limited, Resistered Office 3rd Floor Maker Chambers 4, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,, bearing account number 002821711432385, IFSC-JIOP0000001.
(ii) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction may kindly be quashed and set-aside the complainant.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:29:28 PM) (Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:48:38 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13176] (2 of 3) [CW-5987/2026]
(iii) By an appropriate writ, order and direction, direct the respondent bank to pay damages and compensation for mentally and economic loss.
(iv) Any other appropriate order direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Jio Payment Bank Ltd. (Respondent No.3) to keep the disputed amount (the amount which was transferred illegally in the bank account of the petitioner) frozen and allow the petitioner to make transactions from his bank account from the remaining balance.
3. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent - Bank has not received the information regarding the exact figure of the disputed amount, which the Investigating Officer/Police alleges to be receipt(s) of the offence, the bank shall send a communication to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, to indicate the amount to be earmarked for lien, while endorsing a copy of the instant order.
4. Upon receipt of such communication/letter, the concerned Investigating Officer/Police shall be under an obligation to apprise the respondent - Bank about the amount to be kept in lien, within a period of seven days of receiving the communication from the respondent - Bank. The respondent - bank shall thereafter do the needful as directed herein above.
5. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent-Bank does not receive any reply from the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, then it shall be duty bound to act in accordance with the instant order.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:29:28 PM) (Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:48:38 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13176] (3 of 3) [CW-5987/2026]
6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 24-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:29:28 PM) (Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:48:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)