[2026:RJ-JP:8009] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19369/2025 Anil Bhuria Son Of Parmeshwar Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Manasiya, Post Khuri Bari, District Sikar, Rajasthan - 332315 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Canara Bank, Circle Office, Through Circle Head, Ground Floor, No.1, Orbit Mall, Ajmer Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Laxmangarh, Building Of Mahaveer Das, Near Nayama Mandir, Nayama Bazar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akriti Mathur Mr. Avinash Fenin For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharmaa Mr. Yash Sharma Mr. Raghav Pareek Mr. Harsh Lodha Ms. Srishti Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 19/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 – Canara Bank vide which, the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 4238101007898 maintained at Canara Bank, Laxmangarh Branch, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, has been frozen. 2. Ms. Akriti Mathur and Mr. Avinash Fenin, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submit that the said action of the [2026:RJ-JP:8009] (2 of 5) [CW-19369/2025] respondent – Bank of freezing the bank account of petitioner is absolutely unwarranted and arbitrary as the petitioner has been maintaining its bank account with the respondent – Bank since 2021 and it is the petitioner’s hard earned money which is credited in the account and the petitioner has been deprived to utilize the same. 3. Learned counsel further submit that the exercise of freezing petitioner’s bank account virtually tantamounts to civil death as the petitioner is not able to carry out any business transactions. Learned counsel further submit that no notice worth the name, even prior or post to the said freezing of bank account was ever served upon the petitioner even though it is a minimum requirement under the law and for this ground alone, the bank deserves to be directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner forthwith. 4. Learned counsel further submit that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the RBI”) under the Master Direction - Know Your Customer (KYC) Direction, 2016, upon which reliance has been placed by the respondent – Bank, also requires bank to act in a particular manner. 5. Clause 59 of the said directions requires that if the bank identifies an account to be a mule account, then, the same is required to be reported by the bank to the Financial Intelligence Unit of India (FIU-IND) and a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) needs to be filed by the Bank. 6. In pursuance of the same, the respondent – Bank itself has violated and not complied with the said clause, hence, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Thus, it is prayed that the writ [2026:RJ-JP:8009] (3 of 5) [CW-19369/2025] petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner with immediate effect . 7. Per contra, Mr. Yash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submits that the transactions carried out by petitioner on account of which the bank account of the petitioner has fallen into scrutiny are suspicious and such transactions makes the bank account of the petitioner fall in the category of a mule account and thus, taking note of the directions issued by the RBI, the bank account of the petitioner was frozen. 8. Learned counsel further submits that there are various transactions wherein, the money which was credited in the account of the petitioner was withdrawn on very the same day by a series of debit transactions. 9. Learned counsel further submits that in the event the petitioner submits a reasonable justification for the said transactions, the respondent - Bank will certainly consider the same in terms of directions issued by the RBI and take a decision thereupon. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. A bare perusal of pleadings reveals that while the bank account of the petitioner was frozen on 28.06.2025, no notice, prior or post the said action was issued by the respondent - Bank calling for any justification. Once, the said exercise of freezing the account was carried out by the respondent – Bank on account of finding certain transactions in the bank account of the petitioner to be of suspicious nature, the minimum which was required to be done by the respondent - Bank was to seek justification from the [2026:RJ-JP:8009] (4 of 5) [CW-19369/2025] petitioner qua the said bank transactions as there might have been an eventuality leading to commission of said transactions in the manner in which they have been carried out by the petitioner. 12. However, till date, there is no notice placed on record which has been served by the respondent – Bank upon the petitioner asking for any justification. Likewise, there is no justification which has been submitted by the petitioner as well to the respondent - Bank with respect to the transactions so carried out by him prior to his bank account being frozen, which could have required the respondent – Bank to consider and take the decision thereupon. 13. Taking note of the above and without delving into the merits of the freezing of the bank account done by the respondent – Bank, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the petitioner to file a representation with respect to the transactions carried out post December 2024, till the freezing of the bank account on 28.06.2025, justifying the said transactions along with the documents in support of the same within a period of ten days from today, i.e. 19.02.2026. In the event of such representation being submitted by the petitioner, the respondent – Bank is directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with law and also by duly taking benefit and guidance from the direction/guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time and take a considered decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of fifteen days from the date of submission of said representation. [2026:RJ-JP:8009] (5 of 5) [CW-19369/2025] Any order passed thereon shall be duly communicated and served to the petitioner within three days thereafter. 14. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 16. However, it is clarified in the event the petitioner remains aggrieved by any action taken by respondent - Bank, it would be open for the petitioner to seek remedy as available under law. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /23