[2026:RJ-JP:27817] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20616/2025 URN: CW / 45656U / 2025 Hari Om Shanti Service Station, Registered Address Chandwaji, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur Through Its Proprietor Pushpendra Singh Son Of Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Salarwas, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303104. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank Of India, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Shahpura, District Jaipur. 2. S.H.O., Cyber Police Station, Vadodara Range, Vadodara, Kothi Building, Raopur-39001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal on behalf of Mr. Chandra Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma on behalf of Ms. Anita Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/07/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of directions against respondent No.1-State Bank of India to defreeze its bank account and has made following prayers: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction : (i) That Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare as illegal, the action of the respondent Bank in freezing the petitioner's entire amount of Rs. 1,52,258.08 dated 13.04.2024 received from Phone Pe and any subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 bank to forthwith de-freeze the bank account No.00000034110111158 IFSC SBIN0011391 State Bank of India Branch Office [2026:RJ-JP:27817] (2 of 3) [CW-20616/2025] Shahpura, Jaipur and aforementionee amount of the petitioner. (iii) Any other appropriate court deems appropriate in teh factual matrix of the instant case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is bonafide holder of Bank Account No.00000034110111158 (the said bank account shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank account in question’) maintained with respondent No.1-State Bank of India, Branch Office-Shahpura, District-Jaipur. However, when the petitioner was not able to operate its bank account, the petitioner contacted bank officials and it was informed that the bank account in question has been freezed. The bank account in question has been freezed by the respondent-bank on account of alleged transactions of Rs.9756.49 (the said amount shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the amount in question’). The petitioner has not been served with any FIR or lawful directive which shows petitioner’s involvement in any wrongful act. The petitioner made all endeavours to defreeze the bank account in question but it was unable to get any relief. Left with no other option, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition praying for the aforesaid relief. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is no more res- integra and squarely covered by order dated 30.06.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Jinat Bano vs. State Bank of India & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5036/2026). 4. The identical issue of freezing of bank account came up for consideration of this Court in the case of Jinat Bano (supra), [2026:RJ-JP:27817] (3 of 3) [CW-20616/2025] wherein after considering the rival submissions, writ petition was disposed of by this Court with following directions: “(i) Respondent-bank shall forthwith remove the debit freeze/restriction imposed upon the bank account in question and permit the petitioner to operate the bank account in question in the ordinary course. (ii) Respondent-bank shall, however, continue to maintain a lien or restraint only to the extent of the amount in question, which is alleged to be connected with the transaction under investigation and the petitioner shall not be entitled to withdraw, transfer or otherwise deal with the amount in question without permission of the competent authority. (iii) The petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the investigating agency and appear before the concerned authorities as and when called upon to do so for the purpose of investigation. (iv) The petitioner shall maintain the bank account in question in active status and shall not close, surrender or otherwise discontinue the same without prior intimation to and permission from the investigating agency till conclusion of the investigation. (v) It is clarified that the present order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations under investigation. The investigating agency shall remain at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and take such action as may be warranted on the basis of material collected during investigation. (vi) In the event, the investigation ultimately reveals the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence or establishes that the amount in question constitutes proceeds of the unlawful transaction, it shall be open for the competent authority to deal with the amount in question and take consequential action strictly in accordance with law. (vii) It shall further be open to Respondent-bank and the investigating agency to deal with or transfer the amount in question in accordance with any lawful direction issued by the competent authority having jurisdiction in the matter.” 5. Thus, in view of consensus arrived at between the learned counsels for the parties, the instant petition is also disposed of in the same terms and with same directions as given by this Court in order dated 30.06.2026 passed in the case of Jinat Bano (supra). 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 67/DAKSH