Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sita vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:37778) on 22 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:37778]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15985/2025
Sita W/o Ashok Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 108, Meghwal
Colony, Meghlasiya Balesar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Home Affairs Through
Secretary, Address North Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi- 110001.
2. State Bank Of India, Through Its Manager, Address
Opposite Govt. Hospital Pokran Road, Balesar, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342023.
3. Police Inspector, Tambaram City Police, Tamilnadu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Buddhpal Singh
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
22/08/2025
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ
petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and
(i) The respondent No. 2 Bank may kindly be directed to
un-hold the hold amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- in the saving
salary account No 61327292329 of the petitioner.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent Bank may kindly be directed to not hold any
type of amount of the Salary account of the petitioner in
future without prior notice.
(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction there
respondents are directed to take cognizance in remitting
the hold money back to the petitioner.
(iv) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble
Court deem just fit and proper be passed in favour of the
petitioner.”
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition
(Downloaded on 25/08/2025 at 09:42:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37778] (2 of 2) [CW-15985/2025]
with a direction to the State Bank of India (Respondent No.2) to
keep the disputed amount (the amount which was transferred
illegally in the bank account of the petitioner) frozen and allow the
petitioner to make transactions from his bank account from the
remaining balance.
3. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent – Bank
has not received the information regarding the exact figure of the
disputed amount, which the Investigating Officer/Police alleges to
be receipt(s) of the offence, the bank shall send a communication
to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, to indicate the
amount to be earmarked for lien, while endorsing a copy of the
instant order.
4. Upon receipt of such communication/letter, the concerned
Investigating Officer/Police shall be under an obligation to apprise
the respondent – Bank about the amount to be kept in lien, within
a period of seven days of receiving the communication from the
respondent – Bank. The respondent – bank shall thereafter do the
needful as directed herein above.
5. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent-Bank
does not receive any reply from the concerned Investigating
Officer/Police, then it shall be duty bound to act in accordance
with the instant order.
6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
50-divya/-
(Downloaded on 25/08/2025 at 09:42:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)