Disposed

Karna Bai W/O Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2026CW/4101/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking defreezing of the petitioner's savings account frozen by Axis Bank over an alleged disputed transaction of Rs. 49,780. Following the court's earlier order in Jinat Bano, the petition was disposed of with directions to lift the freeze while maintaining a lien on the disputed amount.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to remove freeze on the savings account permitting normal operation, with lien retained only on the disputed transaction amount.

Karna Bai W/O Manoj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4101/2026 URN: CW / 9235U / 2026

¶3

Karna Bai W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged 46 years, R/o Naurangabad, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through Director General of Police Police Director Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶7

Axis Bank, Zonal Office Manager, Situated at 1st Floor, Shanti Tower, Hawa Sadak, Civil Lines, Jaipur 302006.

¶8

Axis Bank, through its Manager, 1, Jai Complex Road No. 2, Alwar, 301001.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner	: Nonepresent.
For Respondents	: Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha Advocate with
	Ms. Sunita Meena, Additional
	Government Counsel on behalf of Mr.
	Bhuwnesh Sharma Additional Advocate
	General.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

06/07/2026

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 3-Axis Bank to

¶15

defreeze her bank account and has made following prayers:

¶16

“In view of the foregoing facts and grounds, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

¶17

I. Allow the present Civil Writ Petition and issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in favour of the humble Petitioner;

¶18

II. Direct the Respondent Bank to defreeze the Petitioner’s Saving account no. 401010100042325, IFSC Code UTIB0000401 permitting its normal operation, and in the alternative, allow the Bank to retain a lien only to the extent of the disputed transaction amount, keeping the remaining balance free and operative;

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-4101/2026]

¶21

III. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is bonafide holder of Bank Account No. 401010100042325 (the said bank account shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank account in question’) maintained with Respondent No. 3-Axis Bank, Branch situated at 1, Jai Complex, Road No. 2, Alwar. However, when the petitioner was not able to operate her bank account, she contacted bank officials and 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. 49,780/- (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 she was unable to get any relief. Left with no other option, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition praying for the aforesaid relief.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents is in agreement that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is no more res-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) .

¶24

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:

¶25

“(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.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-4101/2026]

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.”

¶34

Thus, in view of consensus arrived at between learned

¶35

counsel for the parties, this petition is also disposed of in the 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) .

¶36

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶37

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶38

MANOJ NARWANI/60/

Karna Bai W/O Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karna Bai W/O Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iliyas Khan Son of Shri Sirdar Khan Vs Reserve Bank of India

Femiyash Son of Manoj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Saini Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Mahadev Prasad Sharma Son of Mangilal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Saini E-Mitra Kiosk and Pinky Tent Light Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Super Ex Servicemen Cos Private Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan