Sunil Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10011)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3073 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunil Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10011) on 24 February, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:10011]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4683/2026

Sunil Paliwal S/o Sh Sukhram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Shikargarh, Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Dept Govt
            Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.          SBI, Through Branch Manager, Kanhiya Nagar, Shikar
            Garh, Jodhpur.
3.          Director General Of Police, Ahmadebad, Gujarat.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. V.K. Bhadu
For Respondent(s)            :    --



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

24/02/2026

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, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: -

A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents no 2 may be directed to allow the monetary transaction from the bank account subject to holding/liening the doubtful transaction. B. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case 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 State Bank of India (Respondent No.2) to

keep the disputed amount (the amount which was transferred

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 06:21:49 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10011] (2 of 2) [CW-4683/2026]

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.

6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand

disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 248-sonia/-

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 06:21:49 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)