[2026:RJ-JD:4627]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1633/2026 M/s Yash Trading, Through Its Proprietor Narendra Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Plot No.460, Mohan Nagar, Brigaider Zvar Singh Colony, Jodhpur-

342006.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Its Regional Director, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director Head Office, Vadodara, Gujarat.

4. The Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Sojati Gate Branch, Jodhpur 342001, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Augustine For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

27/01/2026

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to forthwith remove the debit freeze / EDD restriction from Current Account No. 01360200001677 in Bank of Baroda (IFSC CODE BARBOJODHPU) (Annex.2)

MICR:342012002 of the petitioner and permit normal banking operations;

ii. Declare the action of the respondent Bank in freezing the petitioner's account as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional;

iii. Direct the respondent Bank to decide the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound manner;

iv. Restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner without due process of law;

v. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with similar controversy has passed order dated 25.11.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22577/2025 (Sita Ram vs. Bank of Baroda and Ors.). He prays that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms as the said writ petition.

3. In view of the submissions made above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to keep the disputed amount (the amount which was transferred illegally in the bank account of the petitioner) frozen and allow the petitioner to make transactions from his bank account from the remaining balance.

4. 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 receipt(s) of the offence, the bank shall send a communication to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, to indicate the amount to be earmarked for lien, while endorsing a copy of the instant order.

5. Upon receipt of such communication/letter, the concerned Investigating Officer/Police shall be under an obligation to apprise the respondent - Bank about the amount to be kept in lien, within a period of seven days of receiving the communication from the respondent - Bank. The respondent – Bank shall thereafter do the needful as directed herein above. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent-Bank does not receive any reply from the concerned Investigating Officer/Police within the stipulated period, then it shall de-freeze the bank account of petitioner.

6. Stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J

17-Ashutosh/-