[2026:RJ-JP:22621] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8346/2026 Vikas Laxkar S/o Dharmi Chand Laxkar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gothiyana Arain Kishangarh Ajmer Rajasthan -305813 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Having Its Office At Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Its Regional Director, Having Its Office At Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Branch Manager, Village Post Arain, Gram Panchayat Arain, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4. D.i.g, Cyber Crime Cell, Police Commissionerate, Khasa Khoti, M.i Road Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha, AAAG with Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma for Mr. Ram Naresh Vijay HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 27/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow and accept this petition and:- a) By issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction commanding the Respondent Bank to immediately unfreeze the petitioner's Saving Account no. BOB (BANK OF BARODA) Saving Account no. 01248100003880 having IFSC Code. BARBOARAINX at branch Arain Rajasthan, It is further prayed that after holding the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 100/-, the rest amount of petitioner may be released. [2026:RJ-JP:22621] (2 of 4) [CW-8346/2026] b) By directing the Respondent Bank to provide written reasons for the freezing of the account and any communication received from Cyber Crime authorities if any. c) Declare that the action of the respondent bank is arbitrary illegal, and violative of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 300A of the constitution of India. d) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in favour of petitioner. e) Cost of the writ petition also be awarded.” 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 Police Authority. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is Rs.50/- 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:22621] (3 of 4) [CW-8346/2026] 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that the bank account of the petitioner was frozen on account of complaints lodged by the respective authorities. Although, learned counsel for respondent submits that the disputed amount in relation to the cyber complaint is Rs.50/-. 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 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. 01248100003880 with Bank of Baroda, of the petitioner, and he may be allowed to operate transactions in his bank account, while freezing only the amount of Rs.50/-, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22621] (4 of 4) [CW-8346/2026] 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/22