Jasmeet Singh Son of Shri Surendra Singh Vs the Station House Officer

[2025:RJ-JP:30876]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11701/2025

Jasmeet Singh Son Of Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Sadar Bazar, Near Gurudwara Road, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan-322021.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Station House Officer, Cyber Cell, Jalna Police Station, Jalna District, Maharashtra.

¶8

The Cyber Crime Cell, Igp Office, Address - 16, Sarkhej - Gandhinagar Hwy, Near Adani Cng, Makarba, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380051.

¶9

The Station House Officer, Police Station Una, District Gir Somnath, Gujarat-362560

¶10

The Station House Officer, Police Station Guntakal Town 1, Ananthapuram, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

Yes Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Gf, Plot No. 1D, 1C And 15 Alanpur Link Road, Ranthambor Circle, Post Office, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan-322001 Sawai Madhopur Branch, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.Nidhi Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Peus Nag

¶14

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

08/08/2025

¶17

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶18

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that yours Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition by calling the entire recoord and after perusal of the same:-

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:30876]

[CW-11701/2025]

(a) Declare that the action of the Respondent Bank is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶23

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Bank to immediately unfreeze the two bank accounts of the Petitioner held with YES Bank, Sawai Madhopur Branch, Rajasthan which are (I) Savings Account No.094050700003662 being held in his personal name; and (ii) Current Account No.094061900001154 being held in the name of his sole proprietorship concern ‘Single Enterprises’, Address-GF, Plot No1d1c And 15, Alanpur Link Road, Ranthambore Circle, Sawai Madhopur Branch, Post Office Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan-322001.

¶24

(c) Direct the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any communication recieived from Cyber Crime authorities, if any.

¶25

(d) Award costs of this petition in favour of the Petitioner.

¶26

(e) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime. Learned counsel submits that certain crime was committed by an accused and a sum of Rs.33,000/- was deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioner and only on this count alone, the respondents have freezed both the bank accounts of the petitioner. Learned counsel

[2025:RJ-JP:30876]

[CW-11701/2025]

(3 of 4)

submits that because of such action on the part of the respondentBank, the petitioner is not in a position to operate his bank accounts, which are causing serious financial loss to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. He, therefore, submits that the disputed amount which has been received in petitioner’s accounts may be freezed but, other than the disputed amount may be allowed to be withdrawn. He further submits that the petitioner may be allowed to operate his bank accounts for the purpose of other transactions. 3. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits an FIR with regard to a cyber crime which has been registered with the Police and on instructions of the concerned police station, the bank accounts of the petitioner have been seized, therefore under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to operate his bank accounts and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶32

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the total disputed amount is of Rs.33,000/- only for which the entire accounts of the petitioner have been freezed. The respondents are not going to gain anything by freezing the entire account of the petitioner. The bank has the only concern with regard to the disputed amount, which was deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioner.

[2025:RJ-JP:30876]

[CW-11701/2025]

(4 of 4)

In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondent-Bank to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioner bearing Nos.094050700003662 and 094061900001154 and allow the petitioner to operate the transactions from his bank accounts by freezing only the disputed amount i.e., Rs.33,000/- which is allegedly involved in the fraudulent transaction.

¶37

It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his bank accounts till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. It is further ordered that after the investigation, if the petitioner is found to be involved in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the illegal transaction and will face the enquiry/investigation as per the law. It is further ordered that the respondent-Bank will be free to transfer the disputed amount from the accounts of the petitioner to the account from which it has been transferred in his accounts.

¶38

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶40

Aayush Sharma /129

Jasmeet Singh Son of Shri Surendra Singh v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmeet Singh Son of Shri Surendra Singh v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girraj Ghatiwala HUF Vs Rajesh Bhargav Son of Late Shree Rishinath Ji Bhargav

Chhote Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Roshan Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nishant Bareth Son of Shri Rajeev Bareth Vs University of Rajasthan

Ankur Mathur Son of Late Shri Kamal Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Rajdeep Biotech Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Chand Son of Late Shri Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan