HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
Soyal - Appellant
Versus
Bandhan Bank - Respondent
CW / 4314 / 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Cyber Crime Regulations - The petitioner sought to quash the freezing of his bank account by the respondent-Bank, asserting no misuse for illegal transactions. The court directed the Bank to de-freeze the account, allowing transactions except for the disputed amount. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Cooperation with Investigating Agencies - The petitioner agreed to cooperate with the investigation and not to close the account until permitted. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the freezing of his bank account, claiming no involvement in illegal activities and readiness to cooperate with authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the Bank to de-freeze the account, allowing transactions except for the disputed amount related to cyber crime.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of freezing the account and the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for cooperation with the investigation while balancing the petitioner’s rights to operate his account.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
ORDER :
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“i). The impugned action of the respondent No.1-Bandhan Bank whereby the account of the petitioner has been frozen may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount which has been received in petitioner’s account may be freezed but, the amount other than the disputed amount may be allowed to be withdrawn. He further prays that the petitioner may be allowed to operate his bank account for the transaction of money.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed in pursuance of the instructions received from National Cyber Cell. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that till the matter is pending investigation, the bank account of the petitioner may not be closed and he may be directed not to discontinue the bank account until the investigation is completed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable with the submissions made by counsel for the respondent-Bank.
6. In view of the submission made before this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner and he may be allowed to operate the transaction in his bank account, freezing only the amount of Rs.3,000/- or any other amount involved in the Cyber crime which is allegedly involved in a fraudulent transaction.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. It is further ordered that after the investigation if the petitioner is found involved in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the illegal transaction and will face the enquiry/investigation as per the law.
8. Stay petition and other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
The court ruled that a bank account can be de-frozen while allowing transactions, provided the account holder cooperates with ongoing investigations.
The court affirmed the right to operate a bank account while addressing concerns related to ongoing investigations into alleged cyber crime, emphasizing cooperation with authorities.
The court affirmed the right to operate non-disputed funds in a bank account while cooperating with ongoing investigations into alleged fraudulent transactions.
A bank account may be de-frozen and operated by the account holder during an investigation, provided they cooperate with authorities and only disputed amounts are frozen.
The court affirmed that a bank account should not be unjustly frozen without evidence of wrongdoing, allowing the petitioner to operate his account while restricting only the disputed amount.
The court ruled that a bank account can be de-frozen for legitimate transactions while freezing disputed amounts involved in alleged fraud, provided the account holder cooperates with investigations.
The court emphasized the balance between a bank's compliance with law enforcement and the rights of account holders during investigations.
Freezing a bank account requires just cause and evidence; the petitioner must be allowed to operate their account barring disputed funds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.