YASHWANT SAINI S/O RATANLAL SAINI v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
CW/7679/2025 · 2025-05-28
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19328 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19328 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7679/2025 Yashwant Saini S/o Ratanlal Saini, aged about 33 Years, R/o Sahji Ka Baas Military Hospital Ke Pass, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan 301001 ----Petitioner Versus
1. Reserve Bank of India, Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302004 Through Its Regional Director
2. A.u Small Finance Bank, Raghu Marg, Opposite Government Children Hospital, District Alwar, Rajasthan. Through Its Branch Manager
3. The Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. The SHO Bandlamotu Police Station, District Palnadu, Andhra Pradesh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Honey Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta Mr. Dikshant Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 28/05/2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent may kindly be directed to forthwith unfreeze the bank Account of petitioner.
2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent may kindly be directed to not freeze the bank account of the petitioner in future without prior notice.
3. Any other appropriate writ, or direction to the respondents, which this hon’ble court deems just, and proper in the circumstances of the case. Cost of the writ petition.”
(2 of 3) [CW-7679/2025]
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent-Bank for defreezing his Account No. 2121218932792957. Counsel submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with any cyber crime committed by anyone, even then his account has been freezed by the respondent-Bank. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and the banking authorities as well, as and when required. 3. Counsel for the State respondents opposes the prayer and submits that complaints were received about the cyber crime committed and amount deposited in the bank account of the petitioner and that is why a decision has been taken for freezing the account of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Looking to the fact that no material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner or his account is involved in any sort of cyber crime but looking to the fact that certain amount was deposited in the account of the petitioner and only on this count alone, his bank account has been freezed. 6. The instant petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the respondent Bank to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 2121218932792957 with the AU Small Finance Bank, Raghu Marg Opposite Government Children Hospital, Alwar and the petitioner shall be allowed to operate the aforesaid account and make transactions. However, the respondents are directed to freeze the disputed amount only i.e.
(3 of 3) [CW-7679/2025] Rs. 29,800/- which is alleged to be involved in the fraudulent transactions. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the bank authorities and investigating agency and will appear before them as and when required. 8. This Court also observes that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue the aforesaid account till the investigating agency and banking authorities permit him to do so. 9. It is further ordered that after investigation, if the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transactions, he shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the aforesaid illegal transactions and will face inquiry/investigation in accordance with law. 10.
It is further ordered that the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to transfer the amount involved in the illegal transaction to the original account from which it was credited to the petitioner's account. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/274