[2026:RJ-JP:14432] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4766/2026 Sunil Kumar Meena S/o Man Singh Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Maharajpura, Po- Pathena, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321615 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Indusind Bank Limited, Through Its Chairman, Indusind Bank Limited 2401 Gen. Thimmayya Road Cantonment, Pune-411001 3. Indusind Bank Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Raja Park Branch 8-10, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Ongole II Town, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha with Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Neha Sharma for Mr. Vinnet Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 07/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “In view of the facts stated above and in the interest of justice, the Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to : Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Bank to immediately defreeze and restore full banking operations in the petitioner's Saving Bank Account No. 100176103977, with a [2026:RJ-JP:14432] (2 of 4) [CW-4766/2026] further direction that any restriction, if at all permissible, shall be limited strictly to the disputed amount of Rs. 1,000/- only, and to restrain the respondents from freezing the petitioner's bank account without a valid order of a competent court, and to pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused the aforesaid bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime and has no relation whatsoever to the alleged fraudulent transaction(s). 3. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. 4. Therefore, learned counsel prays that while the disputed amount which has been received in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submits that the disputed amount is Rs.1,000/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of financial cyber fraud complaint(s). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bank further submits that the petitioner may be directed not to discontinue the bank [2026:RJ-JP:14432] (3 of 4) [CW-4766/2026] account until the investigation is completed or the criminal case is decided. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent – State submits that as the petitioner is the beneficiary of an amount involved in a financial cyber fraud complaint and the investigation is undergoing, no interference is called for at this stage. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent – Bank. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. In view of the submissions so made, this Court is of the considered view that merely because a certain amount has been transferred to the petitioner's bank account in an alleged fraudulent transaction, the act of freezing the entire bank account and imposing complete restriction on banking transactions at this stage will seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner. At the most, the Bank can keep a lien on the amount to the extent it relates to the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) credited in the petitioner’s bank account. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent – Bank to de-freeze the bank account No. 100176103977 of the petitioner maintained at IndusInd Bank Limited, Raja Park Branch, situated at B-10, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004, positively within a period of three days from the date of submission of ceritifed copy of this order and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out banking transactions in the said bank account over and above the disputed amount, in accordance with law. However, the disputed amount i.e., Rs.1,000/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s bank [2026:RJ-JP:14432] (4 of 4) [CW-4766/2026] account in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) shall remain frozen. 12. It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. 13. It is further ordered that after investigation, if the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, the petitioner shall be liable to pay amount involved in the aforesaid illegal transaction and will face inquiry/investigation as per law. 14. Needless to say, that this order has been passed only in the context of de-freezing of the bank account of the petitioner and in no manner is to be construed as any determination with respect to the merits of the financial cyber fraud complaint under question. 15. Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall ensure that all the compliances required for maintaining and operating his bank account with the respondent – Bank are duly complied with. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J VINAY /38