[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar Jeengar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3910) on 20 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:3910]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3484/2025
Anil Kumar Jeengar S/o Madan Lal Jeengar, Aged About 35
Years, Main Market, Koshithal, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Station House Officer, Raipur, Bhilwara
3. Icici Bank, Through Bank Manager Bhilwara
4. Baroda Regional Gramin Bank, Through Bank Manager,
Branch Koshithal, Dist. Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/01/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
order dated 23.05.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Kamal Agarwal & Anr. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No.987/2022) along with other connected writ petitions and the
said order has attained finality as the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its judgment dated 18.04.2024 rendered in the case of The State
of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.8663-8665/2023] along with
connected matter, has concurred with the finding made therein, so
also places reliance on the order dated 23.07.2021 rendered by
the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru Bench in the case of
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:46:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3910] (2 of 4) [CRLW-3484/2025]
Manish Maheshwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ
Petition No.11028/2021).
2. 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.
4. 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 23/01/2026 at 06:46:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3910] (3 of 4) [CRLW-3484/2025]
power, is manifestly arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
5. 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.
6. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner, 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.
7. The following bank accounts of the petitioner shall remain
unfrozen: -
Si. Bank Name Branch Account No.
No.
1. Koshithal Branch, 668001500925
ICICI Bank
Bhilwara
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:46:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3910] (4 of 4) [CRLW-3484/2025]
2. Regional Koshithal Branch, 21709000329 (Old
Gramin Bank Bhilwara 47090200000039)
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, instant writ petition as well as stay
petition are disposed of.
10. All pending applications are also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
208-divya/-
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:46:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
