Court disposed of writ petition directing bank to unfreeze account except amount under investigation, following Jinat Bano precedent. Full operational rights restored for non-disputed funds.
Bank to defreeze account allowing operation of non-disputed funds while maintaining lien on investigated amount with full cooperation required.
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.
[2026:RJ-JP:24860]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8286/2026 URN: CW / 18290U / 2026
Femiyash Son of Manoj Kumar, Aged about 18 years, Resident of Purana Post Office Ke Pass, Ward No. 39, MO.Reraran, POJhunjhunu, Tehsil-Jhunjhunun, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan - 333001
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner | : Mr. Avinash Fenin Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondents | : Mr. Tanuj Gupta Advocate, Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha Advocate with Ms. Sunita Meena, Additional |
| Government Counsel on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma Additional Advocate General. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment
03/07/2026
(2 of 4)
[2026:RJ-JP:24860]
[CW-8286/2026]
“In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
i. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the action of the Respondent Bank in freezing the entire account of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
ii. Direct Respondent No. 3 (Kotak Mahindra Bank) to immediately defreeze/unfreeze the Bank Account No. 4053189958, maintained at Kotak Mahindra Bank, JK Plaza, Railway Station Rd, Opposite Laxmi Market, Subhash Chowk, Sikar, and restore full operational rights to the Petitioner.
iii. In the alternative, if any specific investigation is pending, direct the Respondent to restrict the lien/hold only to the extent of the disputed amount and strictly allow the Petitioner to operate the account for all funds.
iv. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
(3 of 4)
[2026:RJ-JP:24860]
[CW-8286/2026]
disposed of by this Court with following directions:
“(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.”
(4 of 4)
[2026:RJ-JP:24860]
[CW-8286/2026]
(supra) .
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI/17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank account freeze should be lifted in terms of the settled principle in Jinat Bano
Whether the petitioner is entitled to operate non-disputed funds while investigation is pending
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jinat Bano vs. State Bank of India & AnotherFollowed¶27
Jinat Bano vs. State Bank of India & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5036/2026)
Femiyash Son of Manoj Kumar
State of Rajasthan
Kotak Mahindra Bank
D.I.G. Cyber, Police Headquaters, Jaipur
ANAND SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
