[2026:RJ-JP:2809] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16118/2025 Vishnu Laxkar S/o Mahesh Chand Lakhera, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 07, Sunita Colony, Mal Ki Dhani, Railway Line, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Presently Residing At 351, Swarn Vihar, Muhana Mandi, 2 No. Gate Ke Samne, Sanganer, Jaipur, Ra- jasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Commissioner Of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. S.H.O., Police Station - Mansarovar, Jaipur (South), Rajasthan. 4. Managing Director And C.o., I.D.F.C. First Bank Limited, Office At Naman Chambers, G - Block, Bandra Kurla Com- plex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharasthra- 400051 5. Manager, I.D.F.C First Bank Limited, Office At Building No. 94/16, Ground Floor, Madhyam Marg, Masarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302020. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani S. Saini with Mr. Lokesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Ghiya, through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/01/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to this case and af- ter pursuing the same may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, and: i. By appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent No. may be directed to forthwith unfreeze the bank account of the petitioner i.e. Account no.10141454959 with the respondent - Bank (re- spondent No.5). ii. By appropriate writ, order or direction respondent my kindly be directed to not freeze the entire bank account of the petitioner in future without prior notice. iii. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner." [2026:RJ-JP:2809] (2 of 3) [CW-16118/2025] 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 bank 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-Banks submits that the bank account of the petitioner have been frozen in pursuance of the Notice received from respondent No.3-S.H.O., Police Station - Mansarovar, Jaipur (South), Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is around Rs.6,500/- (I.D.F.C. Bank) 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 not involved in fraudulent transaction/illegal activity/or a cyber [2026:RJ-JP:2809] (3 of 3) [CW-16118/2025] 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 his 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 IDFC bank account No.10141454959 of the petitioner, and he may be allowed to operate transactions in his bank account, while freezing only the amount of Rs.6,500/- respectively, which are 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 Seema/107