VIKAS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. VIKAS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38297] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7290/2026 CNR: RJHC010815532026 | URN: CRLMP / 12600U / 2026 Vikas S/o Nena Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Ranisar, Dist. Jodhpur, Raj. (Present Dist. Phalodi) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. The Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Branch Tulsi Bhawan, Nai Sadak, Dist. Phalodi, Rajasthan. 3. The Zonal Manager / Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Dist, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. Dig, Cyber Crime, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur,rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Haniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP Mr. Avinash Acharya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 10/08/2026 1. The instant criminal misc.
petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “ It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present Misc Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or direction- (i) By an appropriate Petition, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to de-freeze the bank account bearing Account Number 35288100011538. IFSC Code- BARBOPHAJOD of the Petitioner in Respondent Bank Of Baroda Branch Nai Sadak Phalodi. (ii) By an appropriate Petition, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to not freeze the bank account of the petitioner in future without prior notice. (iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner. ” 2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this criminal [2026:RJ-JP:38297] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-7290/2026] misc.
petition with a direction to the Bank Of Baroda (Respondents No. 2 & 3) 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. With the aforesaid directions, the instant criminal misc. petition is disposed of. 7. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J 273/Himanshu Singh
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.