JINAT BANO W/O MOHMMAD ANWAR vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

[2026:RJ-JP:23947]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5036/2026
URN: CW / 10993U / 2026
Jinat Bano W/o Mohmmad Anwar, aged about 35 years, Resident of
Mohmmad Nagar near Karin Nagar Kho Nagoriyan Jagatpura,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Branch Jagatpura Bypass Luniyawas
Jaipur, Rajasthan Through its Manager.
2. Deputy Inspector General, Cyber Crime, Police Head
Quarters, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sabir Ali Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha Advocate with
Ms. Sunita Meena, Additional
Government Counsel on behalf of Mr.
Bhuwnesh Sharma Additional Advocate
General.
Mr. Laxmikant Advocate on behalf of
Ms. Anita Agarwal Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
REPORTABLE
30/06/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
issuance of directions against Respondent No. 1-State Bank of India
to defreeze her bank account and has made following prayers:
“It is therefore most respectfully and humbly prayed from this
Hon’ble Court that this Writ Petition may please be allowed. It
is further prayed that:
(i) To pass an appropriate writ order or direction, whereby
Respondents be directed to immediately unfreeze the bank
account no. 36527348330 maintained with respondent no. 1
State bank of India Branch Jagatpura bypass Luniyawas Jaipur.
(ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed.”
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is bonafide
holder of Bank Account No. 36527348330 (the said bank account
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(2 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank account in question’)
maintained with Respondent No. 1-State Bank of India, Branch
Jagatpura Bypass, Luniyawas, Jaipur. However, when the petitioner
was not able to operate her bank account, she contacted bank
officials and she was informed that her bank account has been
freezed. 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 her bank account 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank
account in question has been freezed by the respondent-bank on
account of alleged transaction of Rs. 560/- (the said amount shall be
hereinafter referred to as ‘the amount in question’) and freezing of
the petitioner's bank account is arbitrary and disproportionate. It
was argued that a bank account is an essential instrument for
carrying on daily financial affairs and livelihood and, therefore,
cannot be frozen mechanically merely because an investigation is
pending. According to learned counsel, the respondents have failed
to establish any prima facie nexus between the account and the
alleged offence. It was further contended that even if a particular
transaction is under suspicion, the respondents could, at the best,
restrain the disputed amount and not freeze the entire account,
thereby depriving the petitioner of access to undisputed funds and
adversely affecting her financial and business activities.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that freezing of the account is a lawful investigative measure
undertaken to preserve funds suspected to be connected with the
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(3 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
offence under investigation. It was argued that at the stage of
investigation, the agency is only required to demonstrate reasonable
grounds for suspicion and not to establish guilt conclusively. Learned
counsel further contended that economic and cyber offences often
involve rapid movement of funds, necessitating immediate
preventive action. The impugned measure, according to the
respondents, is temporary in nature and intended solely to facilitate
a fair and effective investigation, warranting no interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
5. This Court carefully heard the rival arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the
record.
6. Needless to observe that the power of freezing of a bank
account during investigation undoubtedly constitutes a legitimate
tool available to the investigating agency for preserving suspected
proceeds of crime and securing the interests of a fair investigation.
However, such power is not unqualified. The exercise thereof must
satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality. A
bank account in contemporary times is not merely a repository of
funds; rather admittedly it serves as an indispensable instrument
through which an individual conducts day-to-day financial affairs,
receives earnings, discharges contractual obligations and sustains
livelihood. Any restraint upon its operation, therefore, carries serious
civil consequences and directly impacts the proprietary and economic
rights of the account holder.
7. The Court is conscious that the object of freezing an
account is to prevent unsafe use of funds allegedly connected with
the commission of an offence. Nevertheless, the existence of an
investigation by itself cannot furnish a sufficient basis for freezing
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(4 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
every account remotely associated with a suspect transaction. Before
such drastic action is undertaken, the investigating agency must
possess tangible material disclosing a prima facie connection
between the account sought to be frozen and the alleged criminal
activity under investigation. The jurisdiction to freeze cannot be
exercised on conjectures, generalised suspicions or as a matter of
administrative convenience.
8. Equally important is the principle that the extent of
restraint imposed must bear a reasonable relationship with the
object sought to be achieved. The law does not countenance
excessive restrictions which travel beyond the necessities of
investigation. Where the amount allegedly connected with the
offence is identifiable and capable of being segregated, there
ordinarily exists no justification for rendering the entire account
inoperative. To deprive an account holder of access even to
undisputed funds would amount to imposing a burden
disproportionate to the investigative purpose sought to be served.
9. The doctrine of proportionality, now firmly embedded in
constitutional jurisprudence, requires every State action affecting
individual rights to adopt the least restrictive measure capable of
achieving the intended objective. Consequently, where preservation
of a specified amount would sufficiently safeguard the interests of
investigation, freezing the entirety of the account would constitute
an excessive exercise of power. Investigative efficacy and protection
of individual rights are not mutually exclusive considerations; both
must be harmoniously balanced.
10. This Court is further of the opinion that indiscriminate
freezing of bank accounts has the potential to inflict consequences
extending far beyond the criminal proceedings themselves. Such
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(5 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
action may disrupt business operations, impede payment of statutory
dues, prevent discharge of contractual liabilities and adversely affect
the livelihood of the account holder and those dependent upon him.
These consequences underscore the necessity for a careful and
calibrated exercise of power rather than a blanket prohibition upon
operation of the account.
11. This Court finds that similar view has been taken by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of
Shwetambari Vikram Bhatt vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
(S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1081/2026 & another
connected petition decided on 19.03.2026), wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench has held as under:-
“5.1 No doubt, the statutory framework empowers the
investigating agency to request the concerned Bank to freeze a
bank account during the pendency of investigation and to
forthwith intimate such action to the jurisdictional Court.
However, such power is neither unfettered nor capable of being
exercised in an unbridled or mechanical manner. The authority
to interdict the operation of a bank account is an extraordinary
measure, which must be invoked sparingly, with due
circumspection, and strictly in consonance with the safeguards
enshrined under law. The freezing of an account cannot be
permitted to continue indefinitely or perpetually without
apprising the account holder of the reasons necessitating such
action, the nature of allegations, the extent of freezing, and the
duration thereof. Any action to the contrary would not only
offend the principles of natural justice but would also result in
manifest arbitrariness.
5.2 The freezing of a citizen’s bank account, in the absence of
cogent and justifiable reasons and without establishing even a
prima facie nexus between the said account and the
commission of a cognizable offence, amounts to a grave,
unwarranted and excessive intrusion into the sacrosanct
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such an
action, if undertaken in a routine, cavalier or mechanical
manner, has the effect of crippling the financial autonomy of an
individual and strikes at the very root of the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21, which has been expansively
interpreted to include the right to livelihood, dignity, and
economic freedom. It also directly impinges upon the freedom
to carry on trade, occupation and business guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported
in 1978 AIR 597 has categorically held that any procedure
which deprives a person of life or liberty must be just, fair and
reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. The power
to freeze a bank account, therefore, being drastic in nature,
must be exercised only upon recording reasons which
demonstrate a live, proximate and direct nexus between the
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(6 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
account sought to be frozen and the alleged criminal activity.
Any freezing order passed dehors such essential safeguards
would be nothing but a colourable exercise of power, vitiated
by arbitrariness, and liable to be struck down.
6. In the case at hand, though it is not in dispute that only a
certain quantified amount is alleged to be the subject matter of
investigation and the same has been kept on hold, yet, by
virtue of a blanket and sweeping direction issued by the
investigating agency, the respondent-Banks have proceeded to
freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners in their entirety.
Such an omnibus freezing order has resulted in grave,
disproportionate and far-reaching civil consequences. The
petitioners have been rendered completely incapacitated from
operating their bank accounts, thereby depriving them of
access to their own legitimate funds. The cascading effect of
such freezing is not merely confined to inconvenience but
extends to severe financial distress and existential hardship.
The petitioners are unable to meet their day-to-day household
expenses, discharge their financial obligations, pay salaries to
employees, honour business commitments, service loans, or
even meet essential expenditures such as medical needs,
education expenses, and basic sustenance. The freezing of the
entire account effectively severs the economic lifeline of the
petitioners, bringing their financial and professional activities to
a grinding halt.
7. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the ground realities
that in the present era, a bank account is not a mere repository
of money but the very bloodstream of an individual’s economic
existence. To freeze the entire account without justification is
akin to throttling the financial breath of a person, leaving them
in a state of helplessness and undue hardship, which the law
neither contemplates nor countenances.
8. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and a careful perusal of the
material available on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if a
balanced and proportionate approach is adopted. While the
interest of the investigation must be safeguarded, the
fundamental rights of the petitioners cannot be sacrificed at the
altar of an unreasoned and excessive exercise of power.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount in dispute i.e.,
₹30 crores, as identified by the investigating agency, shall
continue to remain under freeze. However, the petitioners shall
be permitted to operate their bank accounts for all other lawful
transactions.”
12. Therefore, while the authority of the investigating agency
to secure suspected proceeds of crime cannot be doubted, the
exercise of such authority must remain confined to what is
reasonably necessary in the facts of a given case. The investigative
process cannot be permitted to become punitive in character before
adjudication of guilt. Preservation of evidence and protection of
individual rights must proceed hand in hand. Any order freezing a
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(7 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
bank account must, therefore, disclose a rational nexus with the
alleged offence, be founded upon objective material and remain
proportionate in its operation so that only such restraint as is
genuinely required for the purposes of investigation is imposed.
13. Accordingly, while balancing the requirements of a fair
investigation with the petitioner's right to access and operate her
legitimate funds, the present writ petition is disposed of with the
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
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:36 PM)

(8 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JP:23947] [CW-5036/2026]
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.
14. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI/75
(Uploaded on 03/07/2026 at 05:05:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 06:04:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)