Surendra Singh vs The Branch Manager (2026:Rj-Jd:14011)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4598 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Surendra Singh vs The Branch Manager (2026:Rj-Jd:14011) on 25 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:14011]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6574/2026

Surendra Singh S/o Chail Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Opposite Bhati Khem Singh Market, Nayapura, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, Proprietor S.k. Enterprises.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
The Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Nahari Ka Naka Branch,
G-4/7, Krishan Kripa, Subhas Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ranawat
For Respondent(s)         :     --



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

25/03/2026

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:

i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent may kindly be directed to de-freeze the bank account bearing account number 77010200003084 of the petitioner's Current 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 Bank of Baroda (Respondent) to keep the

disputed amount (the amount which was transferred illegally in

the bank account of the petitioner) frozen and allow the petitioner

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:26:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14011] (2 of 2) [CW-6574/2026]

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 22-himanshu/-

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:26:34 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)