[2026:RJ-JP:11101] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4051/2026 Mahendra Bhati S/o Pappu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Balara, Dist. Pali (Raj.)- 306709. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005. 2. Idfc Bank Through Branch Manager, Ground Floor, Khasra No. 926, Nimaj Road, Jaitaran, Dist. Beawar, (Raj.)- 306302. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha and Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Saransh Ghiya, through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 16/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition with costs and further be pleased to: 1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Bank to immediately de- freeze the account of the petitioner bearing no. 10185367543, IDFC Bank, Nimraj Road, Jaitaran, Dist. Beawar. 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any communication received from Cyber Crime Authorities. [2026:RJ-JP:11101] (2 of 4) [CW-4051/2026] 3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, declare the action of Respondent Bank as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. 4. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondent bank to remove lien if any marked on the bank account of the petitioner bearing no. 10185367543. 5. Award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may be passed in favor of the humble petitioner in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.” 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 Rs.2,653/- and [2026:RJ-JP:11101] (3 of 4) [CW-4051/2026] the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen pursuant to few cybercrime complaints. 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 a direction to the respondent – Bank to de-freeze the bank account No. 10185367543 of the petitioner maintained at IDFC Bank, Ground Floor, Khasra No. 926, Nimaj Road, Jaitaran, Dist. Beawar, (Raj.)- 306302 and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out banking transactions in the said bank account over and above [2026:RJ-JP:11101] (4 of 4) [CW-4051/2026] the disputed amount, in accordance with law. However, the disputed amount i.e., Rs.2,653/- 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. Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall ensure that all the compliances required for maintaining and operating the bank account with the respondent – Bank are duly complied with. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /56