[2026:RJ-JP:10111] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3556/2026 Ankit Kumar Agrwal S/o Mahendra Kumar Agrwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Aligharh, Aligarh, Tonk, Uniara, Rajasthan-304023. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Located At Chitrakoot, 10-C, 1, Pratap Marg, Chitrakoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302021. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Kakan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Manvendra Singh for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi Mr. Naman Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 09/03/2026 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: i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Bank to de-freeze and restore normal operation of the Petitioner’s bank account bearing No.50100241677932 with the Respondent Number 2 Bank at its branch at HDFC Bank, Pratap Marg, Chitrakoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302021 with IFSC HDFC0003769. ii) Quash and set aside the action of the Respondent Bank in freezing the bank account of the Petitioner; [2026:RJ-JP:10111] (2 of 4) [CW-3556/2026] iii) Declare the impugned action of Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; iv) Direct the respondent No.1 to frame guidelines and standard operating procedures for the State Authorities within the jurisdiction of State of Rajasthan in such similar circumstances. e) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. f) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favor 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 around Rs.3,31,284/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been [2026:RJ-JP:10111] (3 of 4) [CW-3556/2026] frozen in connection with on-going investigation in financial cyber fraud complaint. 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 submit 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. 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.50100241677932 of the petitioner maintained at HDFC Bank, Pratap Marg, Chitrakoot, Jaipur, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:10111] (4 of 4) [CW-3556/2026] law. However, the disputed amount i.e., Rs.3,31,284/- 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. 13. It is further ordered that after investigation, if the involvement of the petitioner is found in any illegal transaction, the petitioner 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 JAYANT KUMAR /123