[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parikshit Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12585) on 17 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12585]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5873/2026
Parikshit Singh Rathore S/o Nawal Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Village Gurgarwar, District Deedwana Kuchaman
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Police Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch
Deedwana Road (Branch Code - 11400), Kuchaman City,
District Deedwana Kuchaman (Rajasthan).
3. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Represented By
Its Director, National Highway-8, Mahalipur, New Delhi,
Pin- 110037.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
17/03/2026
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 prayed that the present Writ Petition
may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or
direction-
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent
may kindly be directed to de-freeze the bank account bearing
account number 39113038972. of the petitioner in respondent
bank.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent
may kindly be directed to not freeze the bank account of the
petitioner in future without prior notice.
(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.
(iv) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to 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
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:24:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12585] (2 of 2) [CW-5873/2026]
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.
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
39-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:24:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
