AJAY KUMAR JANGIR S/O PAWAN KUMAR JANGIR vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CW/5494/2026

Case under Other Acts Section NO. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 25-Mar-2026

CNR: RJHC020283282026

Filing Number

CW/16417/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

CW/5494/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Anuroop Singhi

Coram

Anuroop Singhi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Matters relating to Bank Loans and Transactions ( 3100 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Other Acts Section NO

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAY KUMAR JANGIR S/O PAWAN KUMAR JANGIR

    Adv. YASH SONI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  2. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER

  3. 3.STATION HOUSE OFFICER

  4. 4.HDFC BANK

  5. 5.DIG, CYBER CRIME

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Anuroop SinghiView PDF

    Summary: The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition and directed HDFC Bank to partially unfreeze his account within three days. While the disputed amount of Rs. 13,794 (involved in alleged cyber fraud) remains frozen, the petitioner may withdraw and operate the account with remaining funds. The court reasoned that completely freezing an entire account based solely on alleged fraudulent transactions creates unjustified prejudice, and the bank can maintain a lien only on the disputed amount pending investigation completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Nupur BhatiView PDF

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    For Admission- Fresh (With Stay)

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CW/5494/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition and directed HDFC Bank to partially unfreeze his account within three days. While the disputed amount of Rs. 13,794 (involved in alleged cyber fraud) remains frozen, the petitioner may withdraw and operate the account with remaining funds. The court reasoned that completely freezing an entire account based solely on alleged fraudulent transactions creates unjustified prejudice, and the bank can maintain a lien only on the disputed amount pending investigation completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case