MUKESH 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. MUKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38112] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6945/2026 CNR: RJHC010792692026 | URN: CRLMP / 12167U / 2026 Mukesh S/o Paras Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Pabupura Kumharan Pabupura Kumharan District Jodhpur Rajasthan 342802 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home Department Jaipur 2. Branch Manager, UCO Bank Ltd Branch Pali Road Prithvi Raj Nagar Near Jhalamand Choraya District Jodhpur Rajasthan. 3. The DIG, Cyber Crime Police Head Quarters Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijesh Mr. Chetan Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. K. Bhati, PP 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 present Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and direction-by an appropriate, order or (i) By an appropriate Misc.
Petition, order ΟΙ the be direction, respondent may kindly directed to de-freeze the bank account bearing account number 23853211022282, IFSC UCBA0002385. of the petitioner in respondent bank. (ii) By an appropriate Misc. Petition, order or direction, the be respondent may kindly directed to not freeze the bank account of the petitioner in future without prior notice. (iii) or direction which this Any other order Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) The cost of the Misc. petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner..... ” 2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this misc. [2026:RJ-JP:38112] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6945/2026] petition with a direction to the UCO Bank Ltd (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 71/Dinesh Suthar
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.