Disposed
Rohit Bakliwal S/O Basant Kumar Bakliwal v. Induslnd Bank
Rajasthan HCCW/17340/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
What the court decided
AI extract
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:47529]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17340/2025
Rohit Bakliwal S/o Basant Kumar Bakliwal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o C-74, Kashyap Path, Shyam Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Adv with |
|---|---|
| Mr. Sunil Meena,Adv. | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Ms. Megha Sharma, Adv. for |
| Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma,AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order
24/11/2025
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5421/2025; Sunil Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , decided on 16.05.2025 which reads as
follows: -
(2 of 3)
[2025:RJ-JP:47529]
[CW-17340/2025]
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transaction and he has not committed any Cyber Crime.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioneris ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount, which has been received in the petitioner’s bank account No. 258278611192 may be freezed but amount, other than disputed amount, may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner as on account of freezing of the bank account of the petitioner, he is facing problem in day to day money transaction.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondentbank inspite of receipt of notice.
5 . In view of the submissions made before this Court, the transaction is issued to the respondent-bank to de-freeze the saving account No. 258278611192 of the petitioner in Indusind Bank, Johari Bazar Jaipur Branch. However, the disputed amount i.e. 4830/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s account in connection with fraudulent transactions shall remain freezed. It is further made clear that keeping the disputed amount aside the petitioner will be allowed to operate his aforementioned savingsaccount for day to day money transactions. It is further directed that only the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 4830/- which has been alleged to have been credited in the petitioner’s account shall be freezed in the account of the petitioner and he will be allowed to operate his account in connection with fraudulent transactions.
6 . It is made clear that the petitioner will be cooperate with the investigating officer and he will appear before investigating agency as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his above mentioned bank account with the respondent-bank till the investigation is completed by the investigating agency. It is also made clear that in case, after the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, the investigating agency would be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
7 . With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
8 . Stay application and other application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”
(3 of 3)
[2025:RJ-JP:47529]
[CW-17340/2025]
3 . Ms. Megha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
respondents-State has no objection if the writ petition is decided in terms of the above order.
same terms as in the case of Sunil Yogi (supra).
5. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
Avinash/25
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bank account frozen over cyber-fraud-related credited amounts may be operated except for the disputed sum.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5421/2025; Sunil Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rohit Bakliwal
Induslnd Bank, through its Branch Manager, Jaipur
Station House Officer, Swaroopnagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
Station House Officer, Police Station Dhenkanal Sadar, Odisha
Sandeep Taneja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court