Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2132
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J
DAKSH SONI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2642/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Priyank Kewaliya
For the Respondents:
A bank account should not be frozen in its entirety during an investigation; only the specific amount alleged to be proceeds of an offence should be kept in lien, allowing the account holder to use the remaining balance.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to defreeze a savings account, contending that the freezing of the account was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The court found it just and proper to allow the petitioner access to the funds not under dispute. The primary issue was whether the entire bank account should remain frozen during an investigation. The court reasoned that only the disputed amount, which was allegedly transferred illegally, should be kept frozen, while the petitioner should be allowed to transact using the remaining balance. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to defreeze bank account under article 226. (Para 1) |
| 2. partial freeze of disputed amount only. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. disposal of pending applications. (Para 6) |
Order
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or direction-
(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately defreeze the petitioner's savings account bearing No. 42303650953, State Bank of India, Branch Deedwana Kuchaman Road, District Nagaur.(Annexure-2)
(ii) Declare the action of freezing the account as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of the petitioner's fundamental and statutory rights.
(iii) Direct the respondents not to freeze or restrict the petitioner's account in future except in strict compliance with statutory provisions and only upon due notice to the petitioner;
(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Bank of India (Respondent No.3) 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent-Bank does not receive any reply from the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, then it shall be duty bound to act in accordance with the instant order.
6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
