1. Controversy covered by judgment on freezing of bank accounts in cyber financial crime cases. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 20308
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Anand Sharma, J
RAJKUMAR S/O BHIVA RAM – Appellant
Versus
YES BANK – Respondent
CW 16598 / 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adarsh Singhal
For the Respondents: Muneendra Singh Fauzdar, Saumitra Chaturvedi, Peush Nag, Avinash Kumbhaj, Raghav Deupura
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adarsh Singhal
For the Respondents: Muneendra Singh Fauzdar, Saumitra Chaturvedi, Peush Nag, Avinash Kumbhaj, Raghav Deupura
The court held that directions and observations established in a comprehensive prior judgment regarding the freezing, debit-freezing, and seizure of bank accounts in cyber financial crime cases apply mutatis mutandis to subsequent petitions involving identical controversies.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Cyber Financial Crime - Freezing of Bank Accounts - When a controversy is squarely covered by a previous judgment passed by the Court on the same subject matter, the directions and observations in that judgment apply mutatis mutandis to the present petition. (Paras 1 and 3)
(B) Cyber Financial Crime - Alarming increase in cases concerning freezing, debit-freezing, lien marking, holding or seizure of bank accounts - Need for consistent directions and observations to handle such incidental matters. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking relief against the freezing or marking of a lien on a bank account in connection with an investigation into cyber financial crimes.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the issues involved in the petition were identical to those already addressed and resolved in a prior batch of petitions regarding the freezing and seizure of bank accounts in cyber financial crimes.
Issues: Whether the directions issued in a previous comprehensive judgment regarding the freezing of bank accounts in cyber financial crime cases are applicable to the current petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the observations and directions issued in a prior judgment dealing with the systemic freezing of bank accounts in cyber financial crimes apply mutatis mutandis to the current matter.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Parties conceded controversy covered by a previous judgment of the court. (Para 1 )
3. Court noted alarming increase in freezing and seizure of bank accounts in cyber financial crimes. (Para 2 )
4. Directions in prior judgment on bank account freezing apply mutatis mutandis to all similar matters. (Para 3 )
5. Writ petition disposed of with same observations and directions as in Shree Balaji Enterprises case. (Para 3 )
6. What is the court's approach to disposing of cases covered by a prior judgment?
When parties concede the controversy is covered by a prior judgment, the court disposes the case with the same directions and observations mutatis mutandis. (Para 1 , 3 )
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
30/09/2026
1. Learned counsel for the parties at the outset fairly conceded that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 20.08.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Shree Balaji Enterprises vs. Reserve Bank of India & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2679/2026 & others connected writ petitions) whereby all the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court with certain directions and observations.
2. This Court in the case of Shree Balaji Enterprises (supra), while taking note of alarming increase in the cases concerning freezing, debit-freezing, lien marking, holding or seizure of bank accounts in cyber financial crime and all incidental matters, disposed of batch of petitions with certain directions and observations.
3. Thus, instant writ petition is also disposed of in the light of judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Shree Balaji Enterprises (supra). The observations and directions issued by this Court in the above case shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present writ petition.
4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
