Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 233
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
PUNIT OJHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
CW / 21340 / 2024
Mr. Himanshu Pareek, Mr. Devkinandan Vyas
The court emphasized the necessity of just cause for freezing bank accounts and affirmed the petitioner’s right to operate his account, subject to investigation outcomes.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - The court directed the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account while allowing the freezing of a specific amount involved in a fraudulent transaction. The petitioner agreed to cooperate with the investigation and not to use the account for commercial transactions. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Cyber Fraud - The court emphasized the need for reasonable evidence before freezing accounts and the importance of cooperation with investigating agencies. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to unfreeze his bank account, asserting no involvement in illegal transactions, while the bank acted on a police notice regarding a cyber fraud investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the de-freezing of the bank account, allowing transactions except for a specified amount linked to fraud, and mandated cooperation with authorities.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of freezing the account without evidence and the petitioner’s rights during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that account freezing must be justified by evidence, and the petitioner must cooperate with investigations while retaining access to his funds, barring the disputed amount.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Order
17/01/2025
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20616/2024 (M/s. Shakewallah vs. The Branch Manager & Ors.), decided on 13.12.2024, which reads as under :-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to remove the freeze on the bank account and money of the petitioner.
II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Notice (Annexure-4) by which the bank account of the petitioner was put on freeze may kindly be quashed and set aside.
III. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the 10% interest per annum on the amount in petitioner’s account which has been put on freeze from the date of the freeze till the date of release.
IV. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restricted from putting the bank account of the petitioner under freeze in future without any just reason and reasonable evidence against the petitioner of being involved in any cyber fraudulent activity.
V. In alternate, the petitioner prays that the petitioner is ready to submit/ give a bank guarantee of the disputed/fraudulent amount (as claimed by the respondent No.2) in the bank. Hence, the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the freeze on the remaining amount of money in the bank account of the humble petitioner.”
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 Notice received from respondent No.2-Assistant Police Inspector, Worli Police Station, Mumbai. 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 my 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 No.50200039680122 of HDFC Bank Ltd. of the petitioner and he may be allowed to operate the transaction in his bank account, freezing only the amount of Rs.510/- 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.”
In view of the above, the present writ petition
