[2026:RJ-JP:21935] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6313/2026 Rashmi Sharma W/o Anil Dutt Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o House No. 8/219 Sankalp, First Floor, Sector-8, Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj.) 302039 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 2. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Cyber Crime, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Jaipur-North Avenue Having Its Office At D468, North Avenue, Sikar Road, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302013 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Divyansh Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha, AAAG with Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Tanuj Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition by calling the entire record and after perusal of the same:- (a) Declare that the action of the Respondent Bank is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Bank to immediately unfreeze the Saving account number 4649166103 in respondent bank i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank having its branch Jaipur- North Avenue having its office at D468, North [2026:RJ-JP:21935] (2 of 4) [CW-6313/2026] Avenue, Sikar Road, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302013 for its regular transactions. (c) Direct the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any communication received from Cyber Crime authorities, if any. (d) Award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner. (e) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. He therefore prays that the disputed amount, which has been received in the petitioner's account, may be frozen, but that the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn. He further prays that the petitioner may be allowed to operate his bank account for the transaction of money. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen in pursuance of the notice received from Deputy Inspector General of Police, Cyber Crime, Police Headquarter, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is Rs.20,000/- and 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. [2026:RJ-JP:21935] (3 of 4) [CW-6313/2026] 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that the bank account of the petitioner was frozen on account of complaints lodged on NCRP portal by the respective authorities. Although, learned counsel for respondents submits that the disputed amount in relation to the complaint lodged at Deputy Inspector General of Police, Cyber Crime, Police Headquarter, Jaipur is Rs.20,000/-. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submissions so made, this Court is of the considered view that merely because certain amount has been transferred to the petitioner's bank account in spite of the fact that the petitioner is not involved in fraudulent transaction/illegal activity/or a cyber crime, the act of freezing of the entire bank account and imposing complete restriction on transactions is seriously prejudiced to the rights of the petitioner, at the most the bank can keep lien on the amount to the extent it relates to the receipt(s) of offense/disputed amount/amount credited. However, the respondent-Bank should allow the petitioner to operate his bank account over and above such amount in accordance with the law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the bank account No.4649166103 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, of the petitioner, and he may be allowed to operate transactions in his bank account, while freezing only the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which is allegedly involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction. 7. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:21935] (4 of 4) [CW-6313/2026] petitioner shall not close or discontinue his bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. It is further ordered that, after the investigation, if the petitioner is found to be involved in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the illegal transaction and will face the enquiry/investigation as per law. 8. All other pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-128