HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3789/2025 Sonal Kumari Agarwal D/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Urja Agencies, Nearby Dy. S P Office, Jwb Road, Ward No. 16, Sumerpur, Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Hdfc Bank, Through The Manager, Hdfc Bank Sumerpur Branch, Pali, Rajasthan.

2. The Kerla National Cyber Crime Report Portal, Police Station Tirur, Kerala.

3. The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Cell, Police Station Tirur, District Jalappuram, Kerala.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ambalal M.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Mehta for the respondent-

Bank JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

08/05/2025

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Arpit Mehta accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-

Bank.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that in spite of the fact that she has not been found involved in fraudulent transactions; any illegal activities or a Cyber crime, the respondent-Banks have frozen her bank account without any intimation/prior notice.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respective respondent-Banks submitted that the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed and transactions therein have been stopped in light of the instructions/directions which the Bank has received from various Investigating Officer(s) and agencies from all parts of the country. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that notices under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Code of 1973’) (section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) have been received by the respondent- Bank and since the bank account falls within the phrase ‘any property’, within the scope of section 102 of the Code of 1973, the respondent-Bank has no other option but to freeze the bank account of the petitioner and stop the operation therein.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture prayed that the issue as to whether the Investigating Agency can freeze the account and stop all the debit transactions in petitioner’s bank account, without there being any direct nexus with the offence or the offenders, can be decided at later point of time; however, a direction be issued to respondent-bank to allow the petitioner to operate her bank account, may be with a stipulation that the Bank would keep a lien over the disputed amount or the amount which is alleged to be receipt(s) of offence.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner herein is not directly involved in the fraudulent transactions or with cyber fraudster, this Court is of the view that simply because in one form or other, the amount has been transferred to petitioner’s bank account, consequent to bonafide business transactions, freezing of the entire bank account and the complete embargo on the transactions, amounts to violation of fundamental right to carry business guaranteed under Article

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

8. Stay application (S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.3827/2025) stands disposed of, while observing that the respondent-bank shall keep lien of the amount to the extent it relates to receipt(s) of offence. Keeping such amount under lien, the respondent-Bank shall allow the petitioner to operate her bank account over and above such amount in accordance with law.

9. In case the respondent-bank has not received the exact amount, which the Investigating Officer alleges to be receipt(s) of crime or offenders, the bank shall send a communication to the corresponding Investigating Officer/authority to indicate the amount to be earmarked for lien, while endorsing a copy of the order instant.

10. It shall be required of the concerned Investigating Officer/authority to apprise the respondent-bank about the amount to be kept in lien within a period of seven days of receiving the communication from the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank shall thereafter do the needful as directed hereinabove.

11. List this case on 26.05.2025 along with S