[2026:RJ-JP:25245] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10537/2026 URN: CW / 23296U / 2026 Samsu S/o Mangtu, Age About 54 years, Mali Mohalla, Toda, Alwar, Rajasthan-321607 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khoh Panchayat Samiti, Kathumar, Lachhmangarh, Alwar, Rajasthan-301035. 2. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 3. DIG Cyber Crime, Police Headquarters, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Fageria Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha Advocate with Ms. Sunita Meena, Additional Government Counsel on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma Additional Advocate General. Mr. Aniroodh Mathur Advocate on behalf of Mr. Naman Yadav Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 06/07/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 1-State Bank of India to defreeze his bank account and has made 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 [2026:RJ-JP:25245] (2 of 4) [CW-10537/2026] Respondent Bank to immediately unfreeze and unlien the account of the Petitioner bearing Account No. 41906427745. (ii) Order that the respondent bank shall be at liberty to transfer the amount to the original account from which it was credited to the petitioner’s account. (iii) Direct the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any communication received from Cyber Crime authorities, if any. (iv) 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. (v) Award costs of this petition in favor of the Petitioner. (vi) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vii) Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances by this Hon’ble Court may also be passed in favor of the petitioner’s committee.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is bonafide holder of Bank Account No. 41906427745 (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 at Khoh Panchayat Samiti Kathumar, Lachhmangarh, Alwar. However, when the petitioner was not able to operate his bank account, he contacted bank officials and 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. 8,205/- (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 he was unable to get any relief. Left with no other option, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition praying for the aforesaid relief. [2026:RJ-JP:25245] (3 of 4) [CW-10537/2026] 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), 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:25245] (4 of 4) [CW-10537/2026] 5. Thus, in view of consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, this 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 applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI/27/