NIKHIL 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. NIKHIL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38303] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7295/2026 CNR: RJHC010816462026 | URN: CRLMP / 12609U / 2026 Nikhil S/o Mahaveer Parsad, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Menawali, 5 Mwm-B, Post Office Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank Of Commerce (Pnb Bank), Naiwali, District Hanumangarh, Raj 3. Dig, Cyber Crime, Police Headquarters, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aashish Jakhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP Mr. Aditya Singhi 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:- “ … (i) That by an appropriate order and direction, direct the respondents for releasing the whole amount of account bearing number 05032221000922 & IFSC PUNB0050310.
(ii) By an appropriate order and direction, direct the respondent bank to pay damages and compensation for mentally and economic loss. (iii) By an appropriate order and direction, direct the respondent bank to hold the disputed amount and the remaining balance in the petitioner account be allowed to operate without any restrictions; (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly 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 criminal [2026:RJ-JP:38303] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-7295/2026] misc. petition with a direction to the Oriental Bank Of Commerce (PNB Bank) (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.
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 277/Himanshu Singh
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.