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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2234

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANUROOP SINGHI
BALAJI CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER INDIAN BANK – Respondent
CW / 20639 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:5270]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20639/2025

Balaji Corporation, Through Its Proprietor Lina, W/o Gopal

Krishna R/o Plot No 260 Amrit Nagar Muhana Mandi Road

Mansarover, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The Branch Manager Indian Bank, Muhana Mandi Plot No

-138 Kesar Nagar Village - Sukhiya Teh. Sanganer Dist.

Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302020.

2. Nodal Officer (Cyber Complaints), Indian Bank, Muhana

Mandi Plot No -138 Kesar Nagar Village - Sukhiya Teh.

Sanganer Dist Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302020.

3. Cyber Crime Cell Authorities, Police Station Khatodata

Surat City District Surat STATE- Gujrat 395002

…..Respondents

4. Director General Of Police Head Of Rajasthasn Police,

Police Headquarters, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303002

----Performa Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ketan Dhabhai

Mr. Jai Kumar Jain

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Divakriti Vashisth for

Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG

Mr. Mohit Khandelwal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

04/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated

hereinabove, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) Issue a writ directing Respondent No.1 to

immediately unfreeze the current account of the Petitioner

bearing Account No.7439605500 at Indian Bank, Muhana

Mandi Plot No-138 Kesar Nagar Village-Sukhiya The. Sanganer

Dist Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020

(ii) Direct Respondent No.1 & 2 to place on record all

communications received from cyber-crime authorities.

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 02:12:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 07:30:00 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:5270] (2 of 4) [CW-20639/2025]

(iii) Declare the action of freezing the entire bank

account as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)

(g), and 300A.

(iv) Pass such other and further orders as may be

deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has never misused the aforesaid bank account for the purpose of

illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime and

has no relation whatsoever to the alleged fraudulent

transaction(s).

3. Learned counsel also 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.

4. Therefore, learned counsel prays that while the disputed

amount which has been received in the petitioner's account may

be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly

be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to

operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank

account.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank

submits that, as per the information received, the disputed

amount credited in the petitioner’s bank account is around

Rs.10,000/- and there was a letter dated 17.11.2025 issued by

the respondent No.3, in connection with on-going investigation in

financial cyber fraud complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bank further submits

that the petitioner may be directed not to discontinue the bank

account until the investigation is completed or the criminal case is

decided.

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 02:12:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 07:30:00 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JP:5270] (3 of 4) [CW-20639/2025]

7. Learned counsel for the respondent – State submits that as

the petitioner is the beneficiary of an amount involved in a

financial cyber fraud complaint and the investigation is

undergoing, no interference is called for at this stage.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the

submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent – Bank.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. In view of the submissions so made, this Court is of the

considered view that merely because a certain amount has been

transferred to the petitioner's bank account in an alleged

fraudulent transact

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top