[2025:RJ-JP:20732] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5421/2025 Sunil Yogi S/o Gopal Yogi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 223 Fatehram Ka Tiba Mohan Nagar Brahampuri Jaipur Rajasthan 302002. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Director Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. The State House Officer Policy Station, Phalodi Jodhpur Rajasthan 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Home Department Jodhpur Rajasthan. 4. The Superintendent Of Policy Home Department, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh 5. The State Houch Officer Cyber Vspc, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh (530045) 6. The Commissionerate Cyber Crime, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh 7. The Branch Manager/nodal Officer Of Induslnd Bank, Branch Johari Bazar Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is prayed that this writ petition may be allowed and accepted and appropriate writ, order, directions may be given to the respondents to allow operation in above aforesaid saving account 258278611192 in Indusind Bank Branch Johari Bazar Jaipur by [2025:RJ-JP:20732] (2 of 3) [CW-5421/2025] keeping freeze/lein marking disputed amount of rupees 4830/- only or any other relief which lordship may deem just and proper in this facts and circumstances may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transaction and he has not committed any Cyber Crime. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount, which has been received in the petitioner’s bank account No. 258278611192 may be freezed but amount, other than disputed amount, may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner as on account of freezing of the bank account of the petitioner, he is facing problem in day to day money transaction. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-bank inspite of receipt of notice. 5. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the transaction is issued to the respondent-bank to de-freeze the saving account No. 258278611192 of the petitioner in Indusind Bank, Johari Bazar Jaipur Branch. However, the disputed amount i.e. 4830/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s account in connection with fraudulent transactions shall remain freezed. It is further made clear that keeping the disputed amount aside the petitioner will be allowed to operate his aforementioned savings account for day to day money transactions. It is further directed that only the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 4830/- which has been alleged to have been credited in the petitioner’s account shall be [2025:RJ-JP:20732] (3 of 3) [CW-5421/2025] freezed in the account of the petitioner and he will be allowed to operate his account in connection with fraudulent transactions. 6. It is made clear that the petitioner will be cooperate with the investigating officer and he will appear before investigating agency as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his above mentioned bank account with the respondent-bank till the investigation is completed by the investigating agency. It is also made clear that in case, after the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, the investigating agency would be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application and other application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J ANIL SHARMA /41