Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6914 (RAJ)

MAFIYA BANO W/O RAMJAN SIROHA, v. BANK OF BARODA

CW/4481/2026 · 2026-05-04

Vinod Kumar Bharwani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:18780] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4481/2026 Mafiya Bano W/o Ramjan Siroha, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Village And Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Branch Malsisar, Village And Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 331028 2. Deputy Superintendent Of Police (DSP), Dysp Hqrs, Pulwama, Jammu And Kashmir, 3. DIG, Cyber Crime, Police Head Quarters, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG with Mr. Siddarth Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Simran Sharma with Ms. Tanisha Jhavery for Mr. Divanshu Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 04/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the illegal action of respondent No.1 in freezing/seizing the petitioner's saving bank account bearing No.09110100017479 maintained with at Bank of Baroda, Branch Malsisar, Village and Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) b) Direct the respondent No.1 to forthwith defreeze and restore full operation of the petitioner's aforesaid bank account, except to the extent of the disputed amount of Rs.4,990/- & Rs.1000/-, if so, required in accordance with law, c) Declare that the action of respondents in freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner without [2026:RJ-JP:18780] (2 of 4) [CW-4481/2026] notice or opportunity of hearing is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. d) Direct the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice and not to take any coericve action against the petitioner without due process. e) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner. f) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused the aforesaid bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime and has no relation whatsoever to the alleged fraudulent transaction(s). Counsel further submits that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to seizure of his bank account and neither the petitioner has named in the FIR. Counsel further submits that petitioner is ready & willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. Therefore, while the disputed amount which has been received in the petitioner's bank account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the disputed amounts i.e. Rs.4990/- & Rs.1000/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of financial cyber fraud complaint(s). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that the petitioner may be directed not to discontinue the bank [2026:RJ-JP:18780] (3 of 4) [CW-4481/2026] account until the investigation is completed or the criminal case is decided. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as the petitioner is the beneficiary of an amount involved in a financial cyber fraud complaint and the investigation is undergoing, no interference is called for at this stage. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. In view of the submissions so made, this Court is of the considered view that merely because a certain amount has been transferred to the petitioner's bank account in an alleged fraudulent transaction, the act of freezing the entire bank account and imposing complete restriction on banking transactions at this stage will seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner. At the most, the Bank can keep a lien on the amount to the extent it relates to the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) credited in the petitioner’s bank account. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The respondent – Bank shall de-freeze the bank account No.9110100017479 of the petitioner maintained at Bank of Baroda, Branch situated at Malsisar, Jhunjhunu, positively within a period of three days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out banking transactions in the said bank account over and above the disputed amount, in accordance with law. However, the disputed amounts i.e., Rs.4990/- & Rs.1000/- which have been credited in the petitioner’s bank account in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) shall remain frozen; ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them, as and when required; iii) The petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so; [2026:RJ-JP:18780] (4 of 4) [CW-4481/2026] iv) If the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction(s), the petitioner shall be liable to pay amount involved in the aforesaid illegal transaction and will face inquiry/investigation as per law; and v) The petitioner shall ensure that all the compliances required for maintaining and operating his bank account with the respondent – Bank are duly complied with. vi)Needless to say, that this order has been passed only inthe context of de-freezing of the bank account of the petitioner and in no manner is to be construed as any determination with respect to the merits of the financial cyber fraud complaint under question. 09. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAURABH /18