[2026:RJ-JP:14440] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16169/2025 Harish Kumar Sharma S/o Pawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Pacherikalan, Block Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. SBI Bank, Through Its Regional Nodal Officer, Address - State Bank Of India, Customer Service Department, Local Head Office, Near Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan (302005). 2. Inspector Of Police, Police Station Annpurna, Indore Urban, Madhya Pradesh, Pin Code - 452009. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jhabarmal Swami HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 07/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that yours lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition by calling the entire record and after perusal of the same :- (i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent bank to immediately unfreeze the current account of the petitioner bearing account no. 61285431528, held with the IFSC code SBIN0031880 belongs to the State Bank of India, Village Pacheri Kalan Block Buhana, District Jhunjhunu. (ii) Direct the respondent bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any [2026:RJ-JP:14440] (2 of 4) [CW-16169/2025] communication received from cybercrime authorities, if any. (iii) Declare that the action of the respondent bank is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 300a of the Constitution of India. (iv) Award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner. (v) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstance by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner's committee. 2. Mr. Akhil Dadhich, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said bank account was opened by the petitioner for withdrawing funds related to an educational scholarship, however, without any justification, much less any prior communication, the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen by respondent No.1 – State Bank of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justification for the respondents to freeze the bank account of the petitioner in such a hasty manner so as to deprive him of his own funds and thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed and respondent No.-1 be directed to de- freeze the bank account of the petitioner. 4. Per Contra, Mr. Jhabarmal Swami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – Bank submits that though the bank account of the petitioner was opened as a savings bank account for educational scholarship purposes, however, the same is being used for business purposes, as is evident from a bare perusal of the transactions carried out in the said bank account. [2026:RJ-JP:14440] (3 of 4) [CW-16169/2025] 5. Learned counsel further submits that no business transactions could have been carried out, more so when the account was opened for educational scholarship purposes. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Bank places reliance upon Clause 8 (vii) of the State Bank of India Policy on Operation of Bank Accounts - Prevention, Identification and Restriction of Money Mules, which reads as under: “8 (vii) Closure of Saving Bank Accounts: As per the e-Circular No. NBG/PBU/LIMA-SB/4/2023-24 dated 04.05.2023, if Savings Bank Account is used by customer for commercial/business/dubious or undesirable purpose, Bank has the right to unilaterally freeze operations in such accounts and/ or close the account. Branches can close the accounts involved in Cyber Financial frauds in view of instructions contained in the above circular.” 7. Learned counsel further submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition as he could have approached respondent No.1 – Bank for redressal of his grievance 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not disputed that the said bank account has been used for business transactions as is evident from a bare perusal of the bank account statement, which fails to demonstrate that it is being used only for educational scholarship purposes. Once the said fact is not disputed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to operate his savings bank account in the manner as done by him. [2026:RJ-JP:14440] (4 of 4) [CW-16169/2025] 10. Respondent No.1 - Bank has rightly acted in compliance with Clause 8 (vii) of its Policy and thus, no illegality is found so as to interfere with the freezing of the bank account by respondent No.1 - Bank. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed. 13. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondent No.1 – Bank for Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD), if so advised. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /57