[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Puri vs State Bank Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:16339) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:16339]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1490/2026
Arjun Puri S/o Mohan Puri, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Falna Road
Shri Shela Falna Pali Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, Throug Branch Manager E-4 Suvidha
Complex Shastri Nagar Jodhpur Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Throug Director General Of Police,
Police Directorate Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
08/04/2026
1. The instant criminal writ petition under Section 528 of the
BNSS has been preferred seeking a direction for the respondents
to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioners.
2. The facts of the case are that alleging certain fraudulent
transactions, bank account of the petitioner has been freezed,
details of which are provided hereinunder :-
Si. Bank Name Branch Account No.
No.
1. Shastri Nagar, 20530143184
SBI Bank
Jodhpur
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on the record.
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:27:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16339] (2 of 5) [CRLW-1490/2026]
4. No doubt, the statutory framework empowers the
investigating agency to request the concerned Bank to freeze a
bank account during the pendency of investigation and to
forthwith intimate such action to the jurisdictional Court. However,
such power is neither unfettered nor capable of being exercised in
an unbridled or mechanical manner. The authority to interdict the
operation of a bank account is an extraordinary measure, which
must be invoked sparingly, with due circumspection, and strictly in
consonance with the safeguards enshrined under law. The freezing
of an account cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely or
perpetually without apprising the account holder of the reasons
necessitating such action, the nature of allegations, the extent of
freezing, and the duration thereof. Any action to the contrary
would not only offend the principles of natural justice but would
also result in manifest arbitrariness.
5. The freezing of a citizen's bank account, in the absence of
cogent and justifiable reasons and without establishing even a
prima facie nexus between the said account and the commission
of a cognizable offence, amounts to a grave, unwarranted and
excessive intrusion into the sacrosanct fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. Such an action, if undertaken
in a routine, cavalier or mechanical manner, has the effect of
crippling the financial autonomy of an individual and strikes at the
very root of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21,
which has been expansively interpreted to include the right to
livelihood, dignity, and economic freedom. It also directly impinges
upon the freedom to carry on trade, occupation and business
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:27:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16339] (3 of 5) [CRLW-1490/2026]
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
reported in 1978 AIR 597 has categorically held that any
procedure which deprives a person of life or liberty must be just,
fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. The
power to freeze a bank account, therefore, being drastic in nature,
must be exercised only upon recording reasons which demonstrate
a live, proximate and direct nexus between the account sought to
be frozen and the alleged criminal activity. Any freezing order
passed dehors such essential safeguards would be nothing but a
colourable exercise of power, vitiated by arbitrariness, and liable
to be struck down.
6. In the case at hand, though it is not in dispute that only a
certain quantified amount is alleged to be the subject matter of
investigation and the same has been kept on hold, yet, by virtue
of a blanket and sweeping direction issued by the investigating
agency, the respondent-Banks have proceeded to freeze the bank
accounts of the petitioners in their entirety. Such an omnibus
freezing order has resulted in grave, disproportionate and far-
reaching civil consequences. The petitioners have been rendered
completely incapacitated from operating their bank accounts,
thereby depriving them of access to their own legitimate funds.
The cascading effect of such freezing is not merely confined to
inconvenience but extends to severe financial distress and
existential hardship. The petitioners are unable to meet their day-
to-day household expenses, discharge their financial obligations,
pay salaries to employees, honour business commitments, service
loans, or even meet essential expenditures such as medical needs,
education expenses, and basic sustenance. The freezing of the
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:27:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16339] (4 of 5) [CRLW-1490/2026]
entire account effectively severs the economic lifeline of the
petitioners, bringing their financial and professional activities to a
grinding halt.
7. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the ground realities
that in the present era, a bank account is not a mere repository of
money but the very bloodstream of an individual's economic
existence. To freeze the entire account without justification is akin
to throttling the financial breath of a person, leaving them in a
state of helplessness and undue hardship, which the law neither
contemplates nor countenances.
8. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and a careful perusal of the
material available on record, this Court is of the considered view
that the ends of justice would be adequately met if a balanced and
proportionate approach is adopted. While the interest of the
investigation must be safeguarded, the fundamental rights of the
petitioners cannot be sacrificed at the altar of an unreasoned and
excessive exercise of power. The disputed amount shall not be
allowed to be withdrawn rather it shall be retained. Exceeding the
disputed amount, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate the
account.
9. The following bank accounts of the petitioner shall remain
unfrozen: -
Si. Bank Name Branch Account No.
No.
1 Shastri Nagar, 20530143184
SBI Bank
Jodhpur
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:27:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16339] (5 of 5) [CRLW-1490/2026]
10. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police is hereby directed to
forthwith communicate this order to the concerned Bank Officer
and ensure that the account in question is de-freezed immediately,
without any further delay or impediment.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and directions, the
instant writ petition as well as the stay petition stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
273-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:27:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
