[2026:RJ-JP:6577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17678/2025 Dhanraj Sharma S/o Ramprasad Sharma, R/o Gram Parasiya, Govt. School Ke Pass, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer. (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager Kishangarh, Main Chouraha, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. The Cyber Crime Police Station Through Superintendent Of Police, District Erode, Tamilnadu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaishnav Saurabh Dharampal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma with Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma for Ms. Anita Aggarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 12/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- i. Issue an appropriate writ order, or direction to the respondent no.1 immediately unblock/unfreeze the bank account of the petitioner bearing no.30301504243 at State Bank of India, Kishangarh Branch, Main Chouraha, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer. ii. Direct the respondents to provide the written reasons for the blocking/freezing of the bank account and any communication/information received the [2026:RJ-JP:6577] (2 of 4) [CW-17678/2025] from Cyber Crime Authorities, if any. iii. Pass any other appropriate order or relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. iv. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account. 5.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 is Rs.40,000/- and Rs.4,000/-, total amount being Rs.44,000/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance to the directions issued by respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bank further submits that the petitioner may be directed not to discontinue the bank [2026:RJ-JP:6577] (3 of 4) [CW-17678/2025] account until the investigation is completed or the criminal case is decided. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent – Bank. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. 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. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent – Bank to de-freeze the bank account No. 30301504243 of the petitioner maintained at State Bank of India, Kishangarh Branch, Main Chouraha, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer 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.44,000/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s bank account in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) shall remain frozen. 11. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:6577] (4 of 4) [CW-17678/2025] Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. 12. It is further ordered that after investigation, if the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay amount involved in the aforesaid illegal transaction and will face inquiry/investigation as per law. 13. 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. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J Vinay /67