The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) disposed of the writ petition, ordering the bank to keep only the allegedly illegal transfer amount frozen and to allow the petitioner to operate his account for the remaining balance, rather than continuing a blanket freeze.
The petitioner, Vatsal Bindal, a 27-year-old resident of Ghaziabad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking de-freezing of his Bank of Baroda account, which had been frozen based on the allegation that certain funds credited to it represented illegal proceeds of offence. The freeze covered the entire account, effectively blocking all transactions, including amounts not alleged to be tainted. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that a blanket freeze was excessive and sought restoration of normal banking operations for his legitimate funds.
The Bench comprising Justice Sunil Beniwal, following the reasoning in Sita Ram,[1] held that the legitimate objective of preserving suspected crime proceeds does not justify freezing an entire bank account indefinitely when only a part is allegedly tainted. It directed the bank to keep only “the disputed amount” (i.e., the sum alleged by the investigating agency to have been illegally transferred into the petitioner’s account) under freeze and to permit normal transactions in respect of the remaining balance. It laid down a clear communication protocol between the bank and investigating officer to quickly identify and earmark this disputed amount.
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent Bank of Baroda to (i) maintain a freeze only on the amount that was allegedly transferred illegally into the petitioner’s account and (ii) allow the petitioner to operate the account freely for the remaining balance.
If the bank has not yet received precise information about the disputed figure, it must write to the investigating officer or police, enclosing a copy of the order, asking for the exact sum to be kept under lien. Upon receiving such communication, the investigating officer is obligated to inform the bank of the amount to be ring-fenced within seven days. After that, the bank must implement the partial freeze accordingly. Crucially, the Court held that if the bank does not receive a reply from the investigating officer within the stipulated seven days, it “shall de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner” entirely.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Khan
[1]Sita Ram v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22577 of 2025, order dated 25.11.2025 (Raj HC)
