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

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and by an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction in nature thereof:

¶17

i) The respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to De-freeze/release the bank account No. 2211218937382132 of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No. 2 bank forthwith, in the interest of justice.

¶18

ii) The respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to remove/lift the lean if marked any on account of the petitioner forthwith so as to enable the petitioner to operate the bank account.

¶19

iii) The respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to lien mark the disputed amount and De-freeze the bank account (account No. 2211218937382132) of the petitioner maintained with respondent No. 2 forthwith.

¶20

iv) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petitioner along with cost of writ petition.”

[2026:RJ-JP:24928]

[CW-4562/2026]

(2 of 3)

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is bonafide holder of Bank Account No. 2211218937382132 (the said bank account shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank account in question’) maintained with Respondent No. 2-AU Small Finance Bank, Branch Raghu Marg, Alwar. However, when the petitioner was not able to operate his bank account, he contacted bank officials and he was informed that the bank account in question has been freezed. The bank account in question has been freezed by the respondentbank on account of alleged transactions of Rs. 8,231/- (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 he was unable to get any relief. Left with no other option, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition praying for the aforesaid relief.

¶25

Learned counsel for the parties are 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.

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 5036/2026) .

¶27

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:

¶28

“(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.

¶29

(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

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:24928]

[CW-4562/2026]

withdraw, transfer or otherwise deal with the amount in question without permission of the competent authority.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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.”

¶39

Thus, in view of consensus arrived at between learned

¶40

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

¶41

30.06.2026 passed in the case of Jinat Bano (supra) .

¶42

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

¶43

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶44

MANOJ NARWANI/88

Iliyas Khan Son of Shri Sirdar Khan v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iliyas Khan Son of Shri Sirdar Khan v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramzan Khan Cheeta S/O Late Aladeen Cheeta, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikas Automobiles Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prajapat Son of Shri Sampat Ram Prajapat Vs Reserve Bank of India

Ladu S/O Rama Vs Bhanwarlal S/O Mewa

Femiyash Son of Manoj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Saini Vs Jaipur Development Authority