[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar vs State Bank Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:15929) on 7 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:15929]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24667/2025
Vinod Kumar S/o Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Ward No. 11, Dhani Lal Khan, Nohar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan -
33523.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager, Sbi
Nohar Branch, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. State Bank Of India, Through The Chief General Manager,
Local Head Office (Lho), Sbi State Bank Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005.
3. Reserve Bank Of India, Through The Regional Director,
Rbi Regional Office, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan -
302052.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005.
5. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarters,
Lal Kothi, Jaipur - 302015.
6. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (Ncrp), Through Its
Director, Mahipalpur, New Delhi - 110037.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishnapal Rathore
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/04/2026
By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ,
order or direction:-
1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including
one in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:29:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15929] (2 of 3) [CW-24667/2025]
Bank to forthwith release and unfreeze the disputed amount
as well, lying in the petitioner's bank account, as there exists
no surviving complaint, no subsisting claim, and no material
on record to justify the continued freezing of the petitioner's
hard-earned money, especially when the account has
already remained frozen since 17.01.2025.
2. Be pleased to hold and declare that the prolonged
freezing of the disputed amount for nearly one year, without
any investigation, progress, or communication from any
authority, is arbitrary, excessive and violative of the
petitioner's fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under
Article 21, and therefore liable to be set aside.
3. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above
prayer, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct that if any
investigation or inquiry is pending in relation to the said
transaction, the same shall be concluded expeditiously,
preferably within a period of one month from the date of the
order, since the petitioner has already suffered substantial
hardship for almost one year due to the continued freeze.
4. Direct the Respondent authorities to take a fresh,
reasoned and lawful decision regarding the status of the
petitioner's bank account immediately upon completion of
such inquiry, and ensure that the petitioner is not deprived
of access to his own legitimate earnings without sufficient
cause.
5. Pass an appropriate order granting a token amount of
compensation, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case, for the arbitrary and
unjustified freezing of the Petitioner's lawful earnings for
more than one year without any investigation, resulting in
continuous hardship and violation of Articles 14, 21 and
300A of the Constitution of India.
6. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit, just, proper and necessary in the interest of
justice, equity and fairness."
2. Although learned counsel for the petitioner requested that
the present writ petition may be decided by directing respondent-
Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to it by the
investigating agency/ police in Fixed Deposits as directed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ petition
No.5698/2026 "Rahul Choudhary vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors.'
3. However, this court having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, deems it just and proper to dispose of
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:29:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15929] (3 of 3) [CW-24667/2025]
the present writ petition with a direction to State Bank of India
(respondent No.1) to keep the disputed amount frozen and allow
the petitioner to make transactions from his bank account
No.61120728483, IFSC Code No.SBIN0031148 from the
remaining balance.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
82-divya/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:29:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
