[2026:RJ-JP:5001] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14865/2025 Raju Meena S/o Shivjiram Meena, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Khirkhiri, Post Manderu, District Karauli, Rajasthan, Presently R/o C-32, Triputi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Au Small Finance Bank, Through Branch Manager, Ground Floor, Plot No. 3, Gem Enclave, Guru Nanak Path, Celgiri Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. The Incharge, Cyber Cell, Police Station Masuri, Commissioner Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Pethapur, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Sarthana, Surat City, Gujarat. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divanshu Gupta with Ms. Simran Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 03/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to immediately unfreeze the petitioner’s Current Account No.2221220841055365 of AU Small Finance Bank at its Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Gem Enclave, Guru Nanak Path, Celgiri Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, retaining only a lien on the disputed amount of Rs.5,991/- until resolution of the complaint. b. Any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” [2026:RJ-JP:5001] (2 of 4) [CW-14865/2025] 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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account. 5.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, as per the information received, the disputed amount credited in the petitioner’s bank account in connection with on-going investigation in financial cyber fraud complaint is around Rs.6341/-. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bank 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. 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. [2026:RJ-JP:5001] (3 of 4) [CW-14865/2025] 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.2221220841055365 of the petitioner maintained at AU Small Finance Bank at its Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Gem Enclave, Guru Nanak Path, Celgiri Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and he 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.6341/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s bank 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. [2026:RJ-JP:5001] (4 of 4) [CW-14865/2025] 13. It is further ordered that after investigation, if the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, it 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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /22