[2026:RJ-JP:2698]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17209/2025 M/s Vikas Petroleum Services, Through Proprietor Mrs. Anita Arya W/o Dalip Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Nijampura, Ojtu, Ojtu, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan- 333026.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Cyber Crime Team, Tamil Nadu Police, M2 MM Colony, Police Station Building, Near Arul Nagar Jn. Madhavaraam Milkk Colony Road, Chennai-

600051.

3. State Bank Of India Through Chief Manager, State Bank Of India, Sharma Sanjay Badi Branch, Chomu, Jaipur-

303702.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Kakani Mr. Saurabh Tripathi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha, AAAG for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma for Ms. Anita Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

21/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed:

(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order ог direction to the Respondent No.3 to immediately unblock/unfreeze the Bank Account of the petitioner bearing account No. 36211345010 with IFSC Code of SBIN0010488 at State Bank of India, Sharma Sanjay Badi Branch, Chomu, Jaipur-303702.

(ii) Direct the Respondents to provide written reasons for the blocking/freezing of the bank account and any communication/information received from the Cyber Crime authorities if any;

(iii) Direct the respondent No.1 to frame guidelines and standard operating procedures for the State Authorities, within the jurisdiction of State of Rajasthan in such similar circumstances.

(iv) Pass any other appropriate order or relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioner.

(v) Cost of the Petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

4. 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 respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Cyber Crime Team, Tamil Nadu Police. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that, as per information received, the disputed amount is around Rs.64,500/- 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.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

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