[2026:RJ-JP:20156] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 185/2026 Sharda Techno Solar Pvt Ltd, 60 Shiv Shakti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Director Brijendra Singh Khushwaha S/o Late Shri Chittar Singh Khushwaha, Age 55 Years, R/o 60 Shivshakti Nagar, Kings Road, Indo Bharat School, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005. 2. State Bank Of India, Through Manager Branch Nirman Nagar, No. A 47, K Towers, Vrindavan Vihar Kings Rd, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur, Rajsthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Matolia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Ms. Sunita Meena and Ms. Devakriti Vashistha Mr. Vikram Singh with Ms. Annika Anna and Ms. Nidhi Samodia for Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 13/05/2026 1. The present S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 18.02.2026, vide which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1231/2026 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that as the order dated 18.02.2026 records that any pending investigation would be conducted independently, without being influenced by the direction for de-freezing of the petitioner’s bank account, the Investigating Officer by misinterpreting the said observation, is keeping the investigation pending and not concluding the investigation. [2026:RJ-JP:20156] (2 of 2) [WMAP-185/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the applicant – petitioner further submits that the investigation with respect to the sum of Rs. 2,77,00,000/- is pending before Investigating Officer at Police Station Phalodi and therefore, the Investigating Officer deserves to be directed to conclude the said investigation within a specified time. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant – petitioner. 5. The grounds raised in the application and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant – petitioner fail to make out any case for modification/clarification of the order dated 18.02.2026, as the said order is very specific. 6. There is no justification whatsoever to modify/clarify the said order, much less to issue any direction to the Investigating Officer, more so when the relief prayed for in the original writ petition was with respect to de-freezing of the bank account of the applicant – petitioner and was not at all related to the investigation being conducted by the Investigating Officer at Police Station Phalodi. 7. Hence, the present application, being misconceived, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J TUSHAR KUMAWAT /265