NIRMAL KUMAR NAYAK 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. NIRMAL KUMAR NAYAK v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38310] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6892/2026 CNR: RJHC010794042026 | URN: CRLMP / 12099U / 2026 Nirmal Kumar Nayak S/o Raju Ram Nayak, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Adrash Vidhya Mandir Ke Pichhe, Gangashahar,dist. Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Specialised Sme Branch Gajner Road, Dist. Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. The Zonal Manager /cluster Manager, Canara Bank,dist, Bikaner Rajasthan. 4. DIG, Cyber Crime, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur,rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Haniya 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:- “(i) By an appropriate order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to de-freeze the bank account bearing Account Number 110206341884. IFSC Code- CNRB0018340 of the Petitioner in Respondent Canara Bank Specialised SME Branch Gajner Road Bikaner. (ii) By an appropriate order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to not freeze the bank account of the petitioner in future without prior notice....... ” 2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this misc. petition with a direction to the Canara Bank (respondent Nos. 2 & 3) to keep the disputed amount (the amount which was [2026:RJ-JP:38310] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6892/2026] 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 92/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.