[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sourav Bhutia vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5160) on 29 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5160]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 343/2026
Sourav Bhutia S/o Sampat Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward
No. 11, Khara, Bikaner, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Police Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Airtel Payments Bank, Through Its Md And Ceo,
Registered Office At Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela
Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-Ii, New Delhi.
3. The Manager, Aritel Center, Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar,
Phase-Iv, Gurgaon, Haryana.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner, District Bikaner.
5. The Sho, Police Station Jamsar, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivangi Pathak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/01/2026
1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred seeking
a direction for the respondents to defreeze the bank account of
the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that alleging certain fraudulent
transactions, one bank account of the petitioner has been freezed,
details of which are provided hereinunder :-
Sl. Bank Name Branch Account No.
No.
1. Airtel Payment Khara, Bikaner 9660228181
Bank
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:24:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5160] (2 of 4) [CRLW-343/2026]
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on the record.
4. No doubt, the statutes empower the investigation agency to
request the Bank to freeze the account pending investigation and
intimate it forthwith to the jurisdiction Court, but there cannot be
freezing of account perpetually without intimating the account
holders what for their account is freezed and what extent it has to
be freezed because great inconvenience and hardship is caused to
the day to day financial life of the persons concerned, since the
very life-line of the business gets severed by such unilateral
orders of account freezing passed by the Police.
5. The freezing of a citizen's bank account, in the absence of
any cogent reasons and without establishing even a prima facie
nexus of such account with the commission of any cognizable
offence, amounts to a grave and unwarranted intrusion into the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such an
action, taken in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, not only
cripples the financial autonomy of an individual but also directly
impinges upon the right to life and personal liberty enshrined
under Article 21 and the freedom to carry on trade, occupation
and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The power to interdict the operation of a bank account is an
exceptional one, to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection
and strictly in accordance with law, and only upon recording
reasons demonstrating a live and proximate link between the
account and the alleged criminal activity. Any freezing order
passed dehors such safeguards betrays a colourable exercise of
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:24:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5160] (3 of 4) [CRLW-343/2026]
power, is manifestly arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
6. In the case at hand, though only a certain amount is
disputed and the same has been kept on hold, but due to the
blanket order to freeze the account, the respondent Banks have
freezed the accounts in their entirety. Therefore, the petitioners
herein are unable to operate their accounts and deal with the
money lying therein. Under the guise of investigation, order
freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount and
period cannot be passed. Such order will be construed as violation
of the fundamental rights of trade and business as well as
violation of livelihood. This court is of the considered opinion that
keeping only the disputed amount on hold would serve the
interest of the parties.
7. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material
available on record, it is directed that the amount in dispute shall
remain under freeze; however, the petitioner shall be permitted to
operate the said bank account for all other lawful transactions.
The respondent-bank shall ensure that only the debit operations to
the extent of the disputed amount in the account bearing the
number mentioned hereinbelow remain interdicted, while the
account shall otherwise remain fully operational for all remaining
purposes.
8. The following bank accounts of the petitioner shall remain
unfrozen: -
Sl. Bank Name Branch Account No.
No.
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:24:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5160] (4 of 4) [CRLW-343/2026]
1. Airtel Payment Khara, Bikaner 9660228181
Bank
9. Accordingly, the Superintendent 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.
10. In view of the above, instant writ petition as well as stay
petition are disposed of.
11. All pending applications are also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
25-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:24:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
