Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2026CW/8548/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to defreeze a bank account frozen due to alleged transactions. Court observed issue was res-integra under a prior order and disposed of petition applying identical directions to remove debit freeze while maintaining lien on disputed amount.

What did the court decide?

Directions to remove debit freeze on bank account and permit operations in ordinary course while maintaining lien on disputed amount.

Saini E-Mitra Kiosk and Pinky Tent Light Vs State of… — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:25098]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8548/2026 URN: CW / 18902U / 2026

¶4

Saini E-Mitra Kiosk & Pinky Tent Light, Mochiwara Road, Bhuchani Chowk, Sikar through Proprietor Lalchand Saini S/o Shri Balu Ram Saini, aged 34 years, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Ward No.1 Sikar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Dy. Inspector General, Cyber Crime, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. State Bank of India, Branch Khatri Building, Khatikan Pyau, NH-11, Sikar through Branch Manager.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Dharmendra Fageria Advocate.
For Respondents	:	Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha Advocate with
		Ms. Sunita Meena, Additional Government Counsel on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma Additional Advocate General.
		Mr. Aniroodh Mathur Advocate on
		behalf of Mr. Naman Yadav Advocate.

¶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-State Bank of India

¶15

to defreeze his bank account and has made following prayers:

¶16

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition; and further be pleased to direct the respondents to de-freeze the current account number 0000040388428152 with the Respondent SBI Bank Branch at Khatikan Pyau, Fatehpur Road, Sikar IFSC Code SBIN0018666 and allow the petitioner firm to make transaction in its bank account regularly.

¶17

Any other order/ direction /relief which this Hon’ble Court deems proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner along with cost.”

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:25098]

[CW-8548/2026]

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is bonafide holder of Bank Account No. 0000040388428152 (the said bank account shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank account in question’) maintained with Respondent No. 3-State Bank of India, Branch at Khatri Building, Khatikan Pyau, NH-11, Sikar. However, when the petitioner was not able to operate its bank account, it 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. 1,15,559.74 (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 it was unable to get any relief. Left with no other option, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition praying for the aforesaid relief.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

(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:25098]

[CW-8548/2026]

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.”

¶36

Thus, in view of consensus arrived at between learned

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶41

MANOJ NARWANI/13

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saini E-Mitra Kiosk and Pinky Tent Light 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

Karna Bai W/O Manoj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahadev Prasad Sharma Son of Mangilal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

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