HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 90/2025 Manish Kumar Kumawat S/o Surajkaran Kumawat, R/o Village Chandthali, Police Station Sawar, District Kekri (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, District Ajmer in FIR No.219/2023 registered with Police Station Sawar, District Kekri, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for getting the amount of Rs.1,75,593/- on supurdagi has been rejected. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 19.11.2024, hence, aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of this petition. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-90/2025] 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an online fraud was committed by the accused persons in the bank account of the petitioner and a total amount of Rs.2,57,843/- was transferred. Counsel submits that when a complaint was made in this regard, a sum of Rs.1,75,593/- was kept on hold by the Investigating Agency. Counsel submits that the amount in question belongs to the petitioner and he is entitled to get the same and even the Investigating Officer i.e. the Station House Officer, Police Station Sawar, District Kekri, has submitted a factual report in favour of the petitioner with the endorsement that appropriate orders be passed to the concerned Bank to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the complainant-petitioner. Counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioner has not been rejected on merits, but on a technical count that the matter is at investigation stage. Counsel submits that the amount in question is not required for any investigation purpose, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the Trial Court to release the amount in question to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the matter is still at investigation stage, therefore, under these circumstances, both the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the application and the revision petition submitted by the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-90/2025] 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the SHO, Police Station Sawar, District Kekri has submitted the factual report in favour of the petitioner before the Revisional Court and has stated that in case, if the amount in question which has been freezed/ kept on hold is released in favour of the petitioner on 'supurdagi' he has no objection. 7. Considering the above, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the Courts below stand quashed and set aside. 8. The Trial Court is directed to issue appropriate directions to the concerned Bank to release the amount in question in favour of the petitioner after taking undertaking that if in future any applicant appears before the Courts below to get the aforesaid amount, the application filed by the said person, be decided strictly in accordance with law and in case, it is found that the said applicant is not entitled to get the aforesaid amount, the petitioner would refund the same with interest. 9. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/29