Introduction
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anuroop Singhi
Matter: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2144/2026
Petitioner: Monu Malav (c/o Panachand Malav), Bhawani Pura, Bundi
Respondents:
(1) State of Rajasthan (Secretary, Department of Home Affairs)
(2) State Bank of India, Branch Mehrana, Talera, Bundi
Order Date: 09 February 2026
Case Background
Relief Sought:
The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus or appropriate directions for defreezing his SBI Current Account No. 61271744480, permitting operation of the account except with respect to any legitimately disputed amount, directing the bank to return disputed funds to the originating account if required, and requiring disclosure of written communications or instructions received from cyber-crime authorities regarding the freezing of the account.
Context:
The petitioner’s account had been frozen pursuant to written directions issued by an Inspector of Police, Vidyanagara, Davanagere (Karnataka), in connection with an ongoing investigation relating to an alleged internet-banking fraud. The petitioner denied any involvement in the alleged fraud and expressed willingness to cooperate fully with the investigating agencies.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the blanket freezing of the petitioner’s entire bank account was justified where only a small disputed amount was alleged to have been credited to the account.
- Whether the petitioner should be permitted to operate the account for legitimate transactions while the disputed amount remains under lien.
- Whether the petitioner should be required to keep the account active during the course of investigation and what conditions should be imposed while granting relief.
Parties’ Submissions
Petitioner:
Learned counsel Mr. Adarsh Singhal, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Devra, submitted that the petitioner had not misused the account and was ready to cooperate with the investigating authorities. It was requested that the bank be directed to retain lien only on the disputed amount and allow withdrawals and other legitimate transactions from the remaining balance.
Respondent Bank:
Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, Ms. Divakriti Vashisth and Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, informed the Court that the disputed amount credited to the petitioner’s account was approximately ₹5,000, and that the account had been frozen in compliance with written directions issued by the investigating police station in Karnataka. It was further requested that the petitioner be directed not to close or discontinue the account until completion of the investigation.
State:
The State submitted that the petitioner was the beneficiary of funds forming part of a financial cyber-fraud complaint and that the investigation was still in progress. It was contended that judicial interference should remain limited so as to preserve investigatory interests while allowing necessary procedural safeguards.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
Proportionality:
The Court observed that freezing the entire bank account merely because a certain amount had been credited in connection with an alleged fraudulent transaction would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s rights. The appropriate course, therefore, was to retain lien only on the amount that is directly connected with the alleged fraudulent transaction.
Balancing of Interests:
The Court balanced the need to preserve allegedly tainted funds for investigative purposes with the petitioner’s right to access legitimate funds for lawful financial activities and daily needs.
Conditions and Cooperation:
Taking into consideration the petitioner’s assurance of cooperation, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account during the pendency of the investigation without permission from the investigating agencies or the bank authorities.
Operative Order
Primary Direction:
The respondent-bank, State Bank of India, is directed to defreeze Current Account No. 61271744480 and permit the petitioner to operate the account for transactions beyond the disputed amount.
Specific Lien:
The disputed amount of approximately ₹5,000, credited in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction, shall remain under freeze or lien until further orders or completion of investigation.
Conditions:
- The petitioner shall cooperate with the bank authorities and investigating agencies and shall appear before them whenever required.
- The petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account without permission from the investigating agencies or the bank authorities.
- If, upon completion of investigation, the petitioner is found involved in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to repay the concerned amount and face legal consequences in accordance with law.
Scope of the Order:
The directions issued are limited to procedural defreezing of the bank account and shall not be construed as an adjudication on the merits of the underlying cyber-fraud allegations.
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
Proportionate Relief:
The decision reiterates the principle that freezing measures should be proportionate, and that banks should ordinarily retain lien only over the disputed amount rather than imposing blanket freezes over the entire account.
Transparency and Minimal Hardship:
The order reflects the judicial approach of safeguarding investigatory interests while minimizing hardship to account holders by allowing access to legitimate funds.
Account Continuity During Investigation:
Courts may require account holders to keep their accounts active during the course of investigation to facilitate monitoring, cooperation, and financial traceability.
Conditional Nature of Relief:
Defreezing orders are procedural and conditional in nature; the substantive liability of the account holder remains subject to the outcome of investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings.
Suggested Next Steps
For the Petitioner:
Utilize the restored account access only for legitimate transactions, comply with summons or investigative requirements, and maintain proper records of transactions and communications.
For the Bank:
Maintain lien over the disputed amount of ₹5,000, restore account operations for the remaining balance, and properly document all communications with the investigating authorities and the petitioner.
For Investigating Agencies:
Continue the investigation and, if additional tainted amounts are identified, communicate the specific amounts with supporting material to the bank to justify any further lien or freezing action in accordance with law.