[2026:RJ-JP:3953] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 825/2026 Arjun Lal Yadav S/o Surgyan Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Palri Tiraya, Maid, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Med, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Branch Shyampura, Virat Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Police Inspector (Crime), Vimantal Police Station, Pune City, Maharashtra. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Dipti Jindal for Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain with Mr. Rishiraj Maheshwari 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: " In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to : (a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the illegal action of respondent no. 1 in freezing/seizing the petitioner's saving bank account bearing no. 2420110190051698, maintained with Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Branch Shyampura, Virat Nagar, Jaipur. (b) Direct the respondent no. 1 to forthwith defreeze and restore full operation of the petitioner's aforesaid bank account, except to the extent of the disputed amount of Rs. 2,000/- if so required in accordance with law. (c) Declare that the action of the respondents in freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner without notice or opportunity of hearing is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (d) Direct the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner without due process. (e) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner. (f) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." [2026:RJ-JP:3953] (2 of 3) [CW-825/2026] 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 Notice received from Police Inspector (Crime), Vimantal Police Station, Pune City, Maharashtra. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is around Rs.2,000/- 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:3953] (3 of 3) [CW-825/2026] 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. 2420110190051698 with Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Branch Shyampura, Virat Nagar, Jaipur, of the petitioner, and he may be allowed to operate transactions in his bank account, while freezing only the amount of Rs.2,000/-, 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 SOURAV/RAHUL/224