[2025:RJ-JP:47547] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17923/2025 Arshad Qureshi S/o Makbool Qureshi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o F 252, Rajeev Nagar, N.b.c. Road, Hatwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Directorate Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Idbi Bank, Through Branch Manager At A-26, Mahal Yojana, Near Akshay Patra Temple, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddh with Mr. Anita Goyal and Mr. Naman Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashistha with Ms. Megha Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 24/11/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5421/2025; Sunil Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 16.05.2025 which reads as follows: - "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:47547] (2 of 3) [CW-17923/2025] 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 petitioneris 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bank account No. 258278611192 may be freezed but amount, other than disputed amount, may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner as on account of freezing of the bank account of the petitioner, he is facing problem in day to day money transaction. 4.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 savingsaccount 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 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:47547] (3 of 3) [CW-17923/2025] 3. Ms. Megha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents-State has no objection if the writ petition is decided in terms of the above order. 4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Sunil Yogi (supra). 5. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J ashu /34