[2026:RJ-JP:3954] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 528/2026 Rohit Tolani S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Tolani, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 131, Sindhu Nagar, Nari Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Indusind Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch- Bani Park, Situated At Ground Floor Pashupati Akshat Heights, Plot No D 91, Madho Singh Road, Bani Park Jaipur 302016 (Raj.) 3. The Cyber Cell Officer, Police Station, Bangalore City Whitefield Cen Crime, Karnataka. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dikshant Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashistha, AAAG for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/01/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: " It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby; (i) Direct the respondents to immediately unfreeze the petitioner bank account, bearing account No., 100127431906 maintained with Respondent No. 2- Indusind Bank, IFSC Code:INDB0000594; (ii) Declare the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without authority or due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice." [2026:RJ-JP:3954] (2 of 3) [CW-528/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. He therefore prays that the disputed amount, which has been received in the petitioner's account, may be frozen, but that the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn. He further prays that the petitioner may be allowed to operate his bank account for the transaction of money. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen in pursuance of the Notices received from Cyber Cell Officer, Police Station, Bangalore City Whitefield CEN Crime, Karnataka. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is around Rs.8,812.22/- and further submits that the petitioner may be directed not to discontinue the bank account until the investigation is completed or the criminal case is decided. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submissions so made, this Court is of the considered view that merely because certain amount has been transferred to the petitioner's bank account in spite of the fact that the petitioner is [2026:RJ-JP:3954] (3 of 3) [CW-528/2026] not involved in fraudulent transaction/illegal activity/or a cyber crime, the act of freezing of the entire bank account and imposing complete restriction on transactions is seriously prejudiced to the rights of the petitioner, at the most the bank can keep lien on the amount to the extent it relates to the receipt(s) of offense/disputed amount/amount credited. However, the respondent-Bank should allow the petitioner to operate their bank account over and above such amount in accordance with the law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the bank account No. 100127431906 with Indusind Bank, of the petitioner, and he may be allowed to operate transactions in his bank account, while freezing only the amount of Rs.8,812.22/-, which is allegedly involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction. 7. 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 his bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. It is further ordered that, after the investigation, if the petitioner is found to be involved in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the illegal transaction and will face the enquiry/investigation as per law. 8. All other pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA/RAHUL-42