[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meghesh Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19813) on 27 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:19813]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9010/2026
Meghesh Vaishnav S/o Sanjay Vaishnav, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o 4, Gotam Nagar, Ward No. 20, Pratapgrah, Rajasthan-
312605.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Police Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager, Adb
Badgaon Branch, V.p.o, Badgaon, Udaipur, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Its Regional Director,
Reserve Bank Of India, 6, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001
4. Nationalcyber Crime Reporting Portal, Represented By
Its Director, National Highway- 8, Mahalipur, New Delhi,
Pin 110037.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishnapal Rathore
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
27/04/2026
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 respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate
writ, order or direction: -
1. The respondents may be directed to complete the
investigation from the petitioner (if any) and allow the
petitioner to operate his bank account on provisional
basis without any interruption.
2. The petitioner holding a Bank Account No.:
43229186521, IFSC Code: SBIN0005887, Customer
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 02:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19813] (2 of 3) [CW-9010/2026]
Name: Meghesh Vaishnav Is in The Respondent to the
State Bank of India. Kindly direct the respondents to
unfreeze account and remove the debit freeze.
3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be restricted from putting the
bank account of the petitioner under freeze in future
without any just reason and reasonable evidence against
the petitioner of being involved in any cyber fraudulent
activity.
4. Kindly allow the petitioner to operate his account and
use his own amount deposited in the bank.
5. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case, may also 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 State Bank Of India (Respondent No.2) 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.
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 02:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19813] (3 of 3) [CW-9010/2026]
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.
6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
57-sonia/-
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 02:57:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
