RAJESH KUMAR S/O PREMPAL SINGH v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
CW/16237/2025 · 2025-10-17
Sanjeet Purohit
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41839 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41839 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:42818] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16237/2025 Rajesh Kumar S/o Prempal Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 90- A Shivpath, Sanjay Colony, Pani Pech, Po Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, State Cyber Crime Cell, Cid Crime, 7Th Floor, C Wing, Block-2, Karmyogi Bhavan, Sector-10A, Gandhinagar-382010, Gujarat State.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Telangana Cuber Security Bureau Having Address 2 And 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Command And Control Centre Telangana Police, Telangana - 500034 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain, Mr. Suraj Bhan Choudhary, Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Aggrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order 17/10/2025
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to respondent No.1 to immediately unblock/ unfreez the bank account of the petitioner bearing account No.61303902569; b) Direct the respondents to provide written reasons for the blocking/freezing of the entire bank account, along with any communication or information received from the Cyber Crime Authorities, if any, despite the fact that the alleged cyber fraud transaction was of Rs.60/- only.
[2025:RJ-JP:42818] (2 of 3) [CW-16237/2025] c) Pass any other appropriate order or relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. d) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transaction and he has not committed any Cyber Crime.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount, which has been received in the petitioner’s bank account No.61303902569 may be freezed but amount, other than disputed amount, may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner as on account of freezing of the bank account of the petitioner, he is facing problem in day to day money transaction.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-bank in spite of receipt of notice.
5. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the direction is issued to the respondent-bank to de-freeze the saving account No.61303902569 of the petitioner in State Bank of India. However, the disputed amount i.e. Rs.60/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s account in connection with fraudulent transactions shall remain freezed. It is further made clear that keeping the disputed amount aside the petitioner will be allowed to operate his aforementioned savings account for day to day money transactions. It is further directed that only the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 60/- which has been alleged to have been credited
[2025:RJ-JP:42818] (3 of 3) [CW-16237/2025] in the petitioner’s account shall be freezed in the account of the petitioner and he will be allowed to operate his account in connection with fraudulent transactions.
6. It is made clear that the petitioner will be cooperate with the investigating officer and he will appear before investigating agency as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his above mentioned bank account with the respondent-bank till the investigation is completed by the investigating agency. It is also made clear that in case, after the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, the investigating agency would be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
8. Stay application and other application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J TN/62