[2026:RJ-JP:15995] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4503/2026 Lakshay Sharma Son Of Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Gali No. 10, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302015. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Indusind Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch - Choura Rasta, Situated At Ground Floor, Shop No. 1-B, 2- B, 3-B, Jaipur, (Rajasthan) 302001. 3. Deputy Inspector General, Cyber Crime, Police Head Quarters, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Neha Sharma for Mr. Vineet Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 16/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby; 1. Direct the respondents to immediately unfreeze the Petitioner bank account, bearing Account No.257688909138 maintained with respondent No.2 – INDUSIND Bank, IFSC Code: INDB0000707; [2026:RJ-JP:15995] (2 of 4) [CW-4503/2026] 2. Declare the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account without authority or due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Constitution of India; 3. Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account. 5.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.19,062/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of financial cyber fraud complaint(s). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bank further submits that the petitioner may be directed not to discontinue the bank [2026:RJ-JP:15995] (3 of 4) [CW-4503/2026] account until the investigation is completed or the criminal case is decided. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent – State submits that the reply has been filed on 15.04.2026 vide inward No.471221/2026. However, since the same is not tagged along with the file, a copy of the reply has been handed across the dais. Learned counsel submits that 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. Despite granting time, the bank has failed to file their reply, however, 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 the following directions:- i) The respondent – Bank shall de-freeze the bank account No.257688909138 of the petitioner maintained at IndusInd Bank, Branch Choura Rasta, Jaipur, positively within a period of three days from the date of submission of certified copy of this [2026:RJ-JP:15995] (4 of 4) [CW-4503/2026] 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.19,062/- 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; 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; and 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) 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. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /61