Vinod Kumar vs The Branch Manager (2026:Rj-Jd:12503)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4096 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vinod Kumar vs The Branch Manager (2026:Rj-Jd:12503) on 17 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:12503]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5517/2026

Vinod Kumar S/o Munshi Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of
Ward        No.   08,   Rodawali,       4     Rrw,     Hanumangarh        Junction,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Rodawali, Near
Bus Stand, Hanumangarh.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Achala Ram
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, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may most graciously be pleased to accept this writ petition and:

1) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent may kindly be directed to de-freeze the bank account bearing account number 61347309215 of the petitioner's account in respondent bank.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent may kindly be directed to not freeze the bank account of the petitioner's in future without prior notice...."

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 respondent- Bank to keep the disputed

amount (the amount which was transferred illegally in the bank

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:28:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12503] (2 of 2) [CW-5517/2026]

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 6-divya/-

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:28:10 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)