[2026:RJ-JP:11312] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3713/2026 Anil Bhuria Son Of Parmeshwar Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Manasiya, Post Khuri Bari, District Sikar, Rajasthan-332315 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner Of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Police Commissionerate, Khasa Kothi, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. HDFC Bank, Through Its Circle Office, C-96, Kamal Kunj, Ahinsa Circle, Subash Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur - 302001, Rajasthan 4. HDFC Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Ward No 15, Bank Street, Narodara Rural, Tehsil - Laxmangarh, Dist-Sikar, Rajasthan-332311. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Fenin with Mr. Kamlesh Kaswan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Naman Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 17/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to : i. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the action of the Respondent Bank in freezing the entire account of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary; [2026:RJ-JP:11312] (2 of 5) [CW-3713/2026] ii. Direct Respondent No.3 (HDFC Bank) to immediately defreeze/unfreeze the Bank Account No. 50100760661669, maintained at HDFC Bank, Laxmangarh Branch, Sikar, and restore full operational rights to the Petitioner. iii. In the alternative, if any specific investigation is pending, direct the Respondent to restrict the lien/hold only to the extent of the disputed amount and strictly allow the Petitioner to operate the account for all funds. iv. Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the 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 there were two complaints received from the Cybercrime Cells, one from the SHO Cybercrime, Kerala [2026:RJ-JP:11312] (3 of 5) [CW-3713/2026] Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Crime PS, Thiruvananthapuram City, Kerala and the other from the Police Commissionerate, Mira- Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Nalasopara Police Station, Maharashtra. The disputed amount pertaining to the cyber crime complaint from Kerala is Rs.10,000/-. However, despite communication being made by the respondent – Bank with the concerned police station in Maharashtra, no information with respect to the exact disputed amount has been received by the Bank. It is also not disputed that the Bank account of the petitioner was frozen on 30.04.2025 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:11312] (4 of 5) [CW-3713/2026] 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. 50100760661669 of the petitioner maintained at HDFC Bank Ltd., Lachhmangarh Branch, Bank Street, Ward No.15, Lachhmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan – 332311, 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.10,000/- 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. [2026:RJ-JP:11312] (5 of 5) [CW-3713/2026] 15. Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall ensure that all the compliances required for maintaining and operating his bank account with the respondent – Bank are duly complied with. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL / 75 S