Rajasthan High Court (12 Feb 2026) directs SBI to freeze only the disputed amount in Sukha Ram v. SBI and permits partial account access while police specify the tainted sum.
Introduction
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur
Case: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3149/2026 (Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Petitioner: Sukha Ram S/o Padma Ram, aged about 63 years, resident of Kumharo Ka Bas, Talanpur, District Nagaur
Respondent: State Bank of India, Branch Kharia Khagar, Jodhpur (through its Nodal Officer)
Order Date: 12 February 2026
Case Background
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to defreeze his State Bank of India account (A/c No. 33905968505) and to permit operation of the account for meeting essential expenses.
The respondent-bank had placed lien/hold entries on the petitioner’s account on the basis of alleged illegal transfers credited into the account. The petitioner contended that the freezing action had been undertaken without prior notice, without furnishing reasons, and without affording any opportunity of hearing. He therefore sought restoration of access to the legitimate funds lying in the account, at least to the extent necessary for daily living expenses, pending completion of the investigation by the concerned authorities.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account should be set aside where the petitioner claims absence of prior notice and requires access to funds for essential living expenses.
- Whether the respondent-bank may be directed to freeze only the disputed amount while permitting operation of the remaining balance in the account.
- What procedural course should be followed where the exact disputed amount has not been communicated to the bank by the investigating agency.
Submissions
Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the account had been frozen without notice or justification and that such blanket freezing caused severe hardship by preventing access to legitimate funds. He therefore sought immediate restoration of account operations, at least to the extent of permitting withdrawals and transactions relating to the undisputed portion of the balance for sustenance and essential expenses.
Respondent (Bank):
No detailed submissions on behalf of the respondent-bank were recorded in the order. However, the Court directed the bank to act in accordance with the directions issued in the order and to coordinate with the concerned Investigating Officer (IO) for identification of the disputed amount to be kept under lien.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
The Court adopted a balanced and proportionate approach, recognizing both the necessity of preserving allegedly tainted funds for the purposes of investigation and the petitioner’s right to access legitimate funds required for daily living.
The Court observed that a complete freezing of the account was not warranted where the disputed amount could be identified and isolated. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate that only the amount alleged to be connected with the suspected transactions should remain under freeze, while the petitioner should be permitted to operate the account with respect to the remaining balance.
Further, the Court clarified that where the exact disputed amount had not yet been communicated to the bank by the investigating agency, the bank must initiate communication with the concerned Investigating Officer seeking specification of the amount to be earmarked for lien, and the Investigating Officer must respond within the stipulated period.
Final Directions
Freeze Limited to Disputed Amount:
The respondent-bank shall keep frozen only the amount alleged to have been illegally transferred into the petitioner’s account and shall not continue a blanket freeze over the entire account balance.
Operation of Remaining Balance:
The petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account freely with respect to the remaining balance that is not subject to lien or freeze.
Communication with Investigating Officer:
If the exact disputed figure has not been communicated to the bank, the bank shall send a written communication to the concerned Investigating Officer requesting specification of the amount to be earmarked under lien.
Time Limit:
The Investigating Officer shall inform the bank of the disputed amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the communication.
Failure to Respond:
If no response is received within the stipulated period, the bank shall proceed in accordance with the Court’s directions by allowing operation of the non-disputed balance, while retaining the authority to freeze the identified disputed amount once it is subsequently specified by the investigating agency.
Disposition:
The writ petition and all pending applications stood disposed of in the above terms.
Key Takeaways
- Courts increasingly emphasize proportionate freezing measures, preferring partial freezes limited to disputed sums rather than complete account freezes.
- Banks are expected to actively coordinate with investigating agencies to identify the precise amount alleged to be tainted and to act accordingly.
- Individuals retain the right to access legitimate funds necessary for livelihood during the pendency of investigations, subject to preservation of the disputed amount under lien.