[2025:RJ-JP:42704] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15919/2025 Ramesh Kumar Mavaliya S/o Shrawan Ram Mavaliya, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Ward 6, Geelo Ki Dhani, Lamiya, District Sikar, Rajasthan, 332602 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005 2. The Superintendent Of Police, Jammu (Rural), Police Station Domana, Khairi Raipur, Jammu, Jammu And Kashmir - 181123 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Domana, Khairi Raipur, Jammu, Jammu And Kashmir - 181123 4. Bank Of Baroda, Branch Reengus, Rajasthan Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office - Bank Of Baroda, City Road, Post Reengus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Reengus, Rajasthan, 332404 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar with Mr. Hemant Runthla For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha for Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 17/10/2025 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “a) Issue and appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide debit freeze imposed on the bank account of the writ petitioner; b) Direct Respondent No. 2 and 3 to furnish the writ petitioner with a copy of the complaint/FIR and any relevant materials relied upon to justify the excessive measure of freezing the entire account; and direct the respondent number 4 to de-freeze the said bank account bearing account number 53700100009985. c) Direct Respondent No. 2 and 3 to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss, market credibility loss and reputational damage caused due to the arbitrary freeze imposed by respondents without following due process by paying litigation costs. d) Pass such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” [2025:RJ-JP:42704] (2 of 3) [CW-15919/2025] 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bank account No. 53700100009985 may be freezed but amount, other than disputed amount, may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner as on account of freezing of the bank account of the petitioner, he is facing problem in day to day money transaction. 4.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 in spite 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. 53700100009985 of the petitioner in Bank of Baroda. However, the disputed amount i.e. 1,125/- 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. 1,125/- which has been alleged to have been credited in the petitioner’s account shall be 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42704] (3 of 3) [CW-15919/2025] 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. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J ANIL SHARMA /53