SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15859

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SANDEEP TANEJA
ASHOK KHADOTYA S/O PHOOL CHAND YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 18202 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2025:RJ-JP:51220]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18202/2025

Ashok Khadotya S/o Phool Chand Yadav, Aged About 32 Years,

Khadotya Ka Mohalla, Kanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 303806.

----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 Its Branch Manager,

Address Balaji Market, Samode, Ajeetgarh Road, Vpo

Samode, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 303806.

3. Inspector Of Police, Police Station Medipally, Rachakonda,

Telangana. Pin Code- 500098.

4. Inspector Of Police, Cyber Crime Police, Cyberabad,

Telangana. Pin Code- 500032.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Devra for

Mr. Adarsh Singhal

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal with

Mr. Laxmi Kant

Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha with

Ms. Bhagyashree Jain for

Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

18/12/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any

other appropriate writ, order or direction

commanding the Respondent Bank to immediately

unfreeze the current account of the petitioner

bearing Account No. 61206681265, held with

State Bank of India.

(ii) Direct the Respondent Bank to provide written

reasons for the freezing of the account and any

communication received from Cyber Crime

authorities, if any.

(iii) 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.

(iv) Award costs of this petition in favour of the

Petitioner.

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:34:46 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/01/2026 at 01:49:27 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2025:RJ-JP:51220] (2 of 3) [CW-18202/2025]

(v) Pass such further or other orders as may be

deemed just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(vi) Any other appropriate order or direction which

is deemed just and proper in the facts and

circumstance by this Hon'ble Court may also be

passed in favour of the petitioner's committee.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has not been involved in any cyber fraud activity, and that his

entire account has been freezed by the Bank authorities on

account of receiving an amount allegedly being part of cyber fraud

transactions. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and

willing to co-operate with the investigation and the bank

authorities as and when required.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that

account of the petitioner has been freezed in compliance with the

direction of Investigating Officer regarding complaints of cyber

crime committed and alleged disputed amount deposited in the

bank account of the petitioner.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the

instant writ petition is disposed of by issuing direction to the

respondent - Bank to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner

bearing No. 61206681265 with State Bank of India, Balaji Market,

Samode, Ajeetgarh Road, VPO Samode, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

However, the respondents are directed to freeze the disputed

amount only, which is alleged to have been credited in the

aforesaid account of the petitioner in connection with the

fraudulent transactions. The petitioner shall be allowed to operate

the aforesaid bank account and make transactions for the balance

amount.

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:34:46 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/01/2026 at 01:49:27 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2025:RJ-JP:51220] (3 of 3) [CW-18202/2025]

5. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent – Bank

has not received the information regarding the exact figure of the

disputed amount, which the Investigating Officer / Police alleges

to be genesis of the offence, the Bank shall send a communication

to the concerned Investigating Officer / Police, to indicate the

amount to be earmarked for lien.

6. Upon receipt of such communication / letter, the concerned

Investigating Officer / Police shall be under an obligation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top