Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Pradhan Regar S/O Bhagwan Das Regar vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:27060]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11825/2026
URN: CW / 26163U / 2026
Pradhan Regar S/o Bhagwan Das Regar, aged about 30 years,
R/o Khatik Mohlla, Gothiyana, Ajmer Rajasthan- 305801.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Home Affairs having its office at
Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Reserve Bank of India, through its Regional Director,
having its office at Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Village
Post Arain, Gram Panchayat Arin Ajmer Rajasthan.
4. D.I.G., Cyber Crime Cell, Police Commissionerate, Khasa
Khoti, M.I. Road Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jangid Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma
Additional Advocate General.
Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma Advocate on
behalf of Ms. Anita Agarwal Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
15/07/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 3-State
Bank of India to defreeze his bank account and has made
following prayers:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to allow and accept this petition and:-
A) by issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order direction commanding the(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:30:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:58:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27060] (2 of 4) [CW-11825/2026]respondent bank to immediately unfreeze the petitioner’s
saving SBI (STATE BANK OF INDIA) Saving Account no.
61201698626 having IFSC Code SBIN0032019 at branch
Arain, Ajmer. It is further prayed that after holding the
disputed amount i.e. Rs. 30000/-, the rest amount of
petitioner may be released.
b) By directing the Respondent Bank to provide written
reasons for the freezing of the account and any
communication received from Cyber Crime authorities if any.
c) Declare that the action of the respondent bank is arbitrary
illegal, and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the
constitution of India.
d) Any other order which this Hon’ble court deems fit may
also be passed in favour of petitioner.
e) Cost of the writ petition also be awarded.”
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is
bonafide holder of Bank Account No. 61201698626 (the said bank
account shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank account in
question’) maintained with Respondent No. 1-State Bank of India,
Branch Village Post Arain, Gram Panchayat Arain, District Ajmer.
However, when the petitioner was not able to operate his bank
account, he contacted bank officials and he was informed that the
bank account in question has been freezed. The bank account in
question has been freezed by the respondent-bank on account of
alleged transactions of Rs. 36,000/- (the said amount shall be
hereinafter referred to as ‘the amount in question’). The petitioner
has not been served with any FIR or lawful directive which shows
petitioner’s involvement in any wrongful act. The petitioner made
all endeavours to defreeze the bank account in question but he
was unable to get any relief. Left with no other option, the
petitioner has filed instant writ petition praying for the aforesaid
relief.
3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that
the issue involved in the instant writ petition is no more res-
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:30:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:58:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27060] (3 of 4) [CW-11825/2026]
integra and squarely covered by order dated 30.06.2026 passed
by this Court in the case of Jinat Bano vs. State Bank of India
& Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5036/2026).
4. The identical issue of freezing of bank account came up
for consideration of this Court in the case of Jinat Bano (supra),
wherein after considering the rival submissions, writ petition was
disposed of by this Court with following directions:
“(i) Respondent-bank shall forthwith remove the debit
freeze/restriction imposed upon the bank account in
question and permit the petitioner to operate the bank
account in question in the ordinary course.
(ii) Respondent-bank shall, however, continue to maintain a
lien or restraint only to the extent of the amount in
question, which is alleged to be connected with the
transaction under investigation and the petitioner shall not
be entitled to withdraw, transfer or otherwise deal with the
amount in question without permission of the competent
authority.
(iii) The petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the
investigating agency and appear before the concerned
authorities as and when called upon to do so for the purpose
of investigation.
(iv) The petitioner shall maintain the bank account in
question in active status and shall not close, surrender or
otherwise discontinue the same without prior intimation to
and permission from the investigating agency till conclusion
of the investigation.
(v) It is clarified that the present order shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations
under investigation. The investigating agency shall remain at
liberty to proceed in accordance with law and take such
action as may be warranted on the basis of material
collected during investigation.
(vi) In the event, the investigation ultimately reveals the
petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence or establishes
that the amount in question constitutes proceeds of the
unlawful transaction, it shall be open for the competent
authority to deal with the amount in question and take
consequential action strictly in accordance with law.
(vii) It shall further be open to Respondent-bank and the
investigating agency to deal with or transfer the amount in
question in accordance with any lawful direction issued by
the competent authority having jurisdiction in the matter.”
5. Thus, in view of consensus arrived at between learned
counsel for the parties, this petition is also disposed of in the
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:30:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:58:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27060] (4 of 4) [CW-11825/2026]
same terms and with same directions as given by this Court in
order dated 30.06.2026 passed in the case of Jinat Bano
(supra).
6. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI/28/
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 04:30:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:58:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
