##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5431]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 249/2026

Mukesh Kumar S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o

Darjiyo Ka Bas, Bap, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of

Police,police Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Represented By

Its Director, National Highway-8, Mahalipur, New Delhi

Pin110037.

3. Induslnd Bank, Branch Bikaner, Jaysiyaram Complex,

Near Ambedkar Circle, Bikaner.

4. Indusind Bank, Head Office, S.p. Hinduja. Mumbai,

Maharsta

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Murli Sain

For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

30/01/2026

1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred seeking

a direction for the respondents to defreeze the bank account of

the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that alleging certain fraudulent

transactions, one bank account of the petitioner has been freezed,

details of which are provided hereinunder :-

Sl. Bank Name Branch Account No.

No.

1. Ambedkar Circle, 100222247570

Indusind Bank

Bikaner

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:56:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:33:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5431] (2 of 4) [CRLW-249/2026]

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on the record.

4. No doubt, the statutes empower the investigation agency to

request the Bank to freeze the account pending investigation and

intimate it forthwith to the jurisdiction Court, but there cannot be

freezing of account perpetually without intimating the account

holders what for their account is freezed and what extent it has to

be freezed because great inconvenience and hardship is caused to

the day to day financial life of the persons concerned, since the

very life-line of the business gets severed by such unilateral

orders of account freezing passed by the Police.

5. The freezing of a citizen’s bank account, in the absence of

any cogent reasons and without establishing even a prima facie

nexus of such account with the commission of any cognizable

offence, amounts to a grave and unwarranted intrusion into the

fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such an

action, taken in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, not only

cripples the financial autonomy of an individual but also directly

impinges upon the right to life and personal liberty enshrined

under Article 21 and the freedom to carry on trade, occupation

and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The power to interdict the operation of a bank account is an

exceptional one, to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection

and strictly in accordance with law, and only upon recording

reasons demonstrating a live and proximate link between the

account and the alleged criminal activity. Any freezing order

passed dehors such safeguards betrays a colourable exercise of

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:56:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:33:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5431] (3 of 4) [CRLW-249/2026]

power, is manifestly arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in the eyes

of law.

6. In the case at hand, though only a certain amount is

disputed and the same has been kept on hold, but due to the

blanket order to freeze the account, the respondent Banks have

freezed the accounts in their entirety. Therefore, the petitioners

herein are unable to operate their accounts and deal with the

money lying therein. Under the guise of investigation, order

freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount and

period cannot be passed. Such order will be construed as violation

of the fundamental rights of trade and business as well as

violation of livelihood. This court is of the considered opinion that

keeping only the disputed amount on hold would serve the

interest of the parties.

7. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material

available on record, it is directed that the amount in dispute shall

remain under freeze;