[2026:RJ-JP:17683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5558/2026 Vinod S/o Shri Vishnu, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 30-A, Govind Vihar, Girdharipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302021 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, B53/54, Hanuman Nagar, Gautam Marg, Vaishali, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021. 2. The Inspector Of Police / Station House Officer, Police Station Binwar, District Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh - 210501. 3. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Cyber Crime, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Chauhan for Mr. Tanuj Gupta Ms. Sunita Meena and Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 27/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that yours Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition by calling the entire record and after perusal of the same:- a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.1 to immediately unblock/unfreeze the account of the Petitioner bearing Account No.9248376403, held with Kotak Mahindra Bank, situated at B53/54, Hanuman Nagar, Gautam Marg, Vaishali, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302021. [2026:RJ-JP:17683] (2 of 5) [CW-5558/2026] b) Direct the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any communication received from Cyber Crime authorities, if any. c) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. d) 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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account. 5.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 the disputed amount is Rs.900/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of financial cyber fraud complaint(s). [2026:RJ-JP:17683] (3 of 5) [CW-5558/2026] 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 also submits that the transactions as reflected in the bank account of the petitioner are much more than the income slab as declared by the petitioner, who is a student and thus, the petitioner be directed to approach the bank for justifying the entries as reflected in his bank account. 8. 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. 9. In response to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent – Bank, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount as being reflected in the bank account of the petitioner pertains to the small receipts generated by him by carrying out activities of car-washing and ironing. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would file all the requisite affidavits as would be required with the concerned bank for properly maintaining and operating his bank account. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant Bank account details involved in the present writ petition are as follows: Name of the account holder Bank account number Branch Address Mr. Vinod 9248376403 Kotak Mahindra Bank, Gautam Marg, Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:17683] (4 of 5) [CW-5558/2026] 12. 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. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The respondent – Bank shall de-freeze the bank account No.9248376403 of the petitioner maintained at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch Gautam Marg, Jaipur, positively within a period of three days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order and the petitioner 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.900/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s bank account in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) shall remain frozen; ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them, as and when required; iii) 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:17683] (5 of 5) [CW-5558/2026] iv) If the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction(s), the petitioner shall be liable to pay amount involved in the aforesaid illegal transaction and will face inquiry/investigation as per law; v) The petitioner shall ensure that all the compliances required for maintaining and operating his bank account with the respondent – Bank are duly complied with; vi) The petitioner is directed to approach the concerned bank so as to justify the entry as reflected in his bank account by filing an appropriate affidavit in that regard; and vii) 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 JAYANT KUMAR /26