[2026:RJ-JP:22412] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4301/2026 Rakesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Amolak Chand Jain, Aged About 44 Years, R/o V/p- Kakod The.- Uniara District-Tonk (Raj) 304024 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, (Ifsc Code Sbin0032062) V/p- Kakod The. Uniara District -Tonk (Raj) 304024 2. Nodal Officer (Cyber Complaints) State Bank Of India, (IFSC Code -Sbin0032062) V/p- Kakod The. Uniara District-Tonk (Raj) 304024 3. Director of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Divakriti Vashishtha AAAG with Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Nidhi Samodia for Mr. Suruchi Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (1)Issue a writ directing Respondent No.1 to 2 immediately unfreeze the current account of the Petitioner bearing Account No 61171032668, held State Bank Of India (IFSC CODE SBIN0032062) V/P- Kakod Teh.- Uniara District-Tonk (RAJ) 304024 (ii)Direct Respondent No 1 & 2 to place on record all communications received from cyber-crime authorities. (iii)Declare the action of freezing the entire bank account as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A. (iv)Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.” 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22412] (2 of 3) [CW-4301/2026] 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the petitioner's account, may be frozen, but that the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn.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 P.S. Director of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the respondent- Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is Rs.34,752/- 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. 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 respondent submits that the disputed amount in relation to the complaint lodged at Director of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur in Layer 4 & 5 is Rs.34,752/-. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22412] (3 of 3) [CW-4301/2026] 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 their 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.61171032668 with SBI Bank, of the petitioner, and he may be allowed to operate transactions in his bank account, while freezing only the amount of Rs.34,752/-, 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 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 RASHMI-214