[2026:RJ-JP:15163] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3224/2026 Rekha W/o Late Mr. Ashok, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Plot No. C- 17, Flat No. 103, 1St Floor, Sindhi Colony, Adarsh Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Indusind Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, M.i. Road Branch, Having Its Address At Sangam Complex, Ground Floor, Church Road, M.i. Road, Jaipur-302001. 2. Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Chikkaballapura Cen Police Station, Near Police Circle, M.g. Road, Chikkaballapura - 562101. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha with Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Neha Sharma with Ms. Harshita Singhal for Mr. Vineet Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 10/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition and pass appropriate orders: (i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to remove the lien created on Petitioner’s Bank Account No. 156743055003 with Respondent No. 1; (ii) Direct the Respondents to place on record all the details of the Cyber Complaint and alleged fraudulent transaction that has resulted in the [2026:RJ-JP:15163] (2 of 4) [CW-3224/2026] impugned action of creating lien on Petitioner’s Bank Account No. 156743055003 with Respondent No. 1; (iii) Declare that the impugned action of creating lien on Petitioner’s Bank Account No. 156743055003 with Respondent No. 1 is in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India; (iv) Pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 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.998.89 and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of financial cyber fraud complaint(s). [2026:RJ-JP:15163] (3 of 4) [CW-3224/2026] 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 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. 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 the following directions:- i) The respondent – Bank shall de-freeze the bank account No.156743055003 of the petitioner maintained at Indusind Bank, M.I. Road Branch, Sangam Complex, Ground Floor, Church Road, M.I. Road, Jaipur-302001, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:15163] (4 of 4) [CW-3224/2026] banking transactions in the said bank account over and above the disputed amount, in accordance with law. However, the disputed amount i.e., Rs.998.89 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 DANISH USMANI /36