[2026:RJ-JP:7261]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1455/2026 Seven Hest Handicraft, Shop No. 1, Gopal Vatika Colony, Benar Road, Jaipur, Through Its Proprietor/owner Smt. Kusum Saini W/o Prakash Saini, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 1, Gopal Vatika Colony, Near Sitawali Phatak, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Branch Kishanpol Bajar, Ground Floor Shop No. 285, House No 1367 1370, Diwan Shivjilal Ka Rasta. Jaipur (Raj.) Through Branch Manager.

2. Office Of Additional Director General Of Police, Maharashtra State Cyber Department, Through Abhijit Sonawane, Police Inspector, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neelam Choudhary for Mr. Atul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naman Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

16/02/2026

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

“ It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit/allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction be further pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction in the nature of :-

1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the illegal action of respondent no.1 in freezing/seizing the petitioner's current bank account bearing no. 50200095767123, maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd, Branch Kishanpol Bajar, Jaipur. 2. Direct the respondent no.1 to forthwith defreeze and restore full operation of the petitioner's aforesaid bank account, except to the extent of the disputed amount of Rs.9,963.65/-, if so required in accordance with law.

3. Direct the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner without due process.

4. Any other appropriate order(s) or direction(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the humble appellant including award of cost of this writ petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused the aforesaid bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime and has no relation whatsoever to the alleged fraudulent transaction(s).

3. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon.

4. Therefore, learned counsel prays that while the disputed amount which has been received in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submits that, as per the information received, the disputed amount credited in the petitioner’s bank account are Rs.2200/-, Rs.1500/-, Rs.2463.90, Rs.2000/-, Rs. 1799.75 and Rs.239/-, total amount being Rs.10,202.65, and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in connection with on-going investigation in multiple UPI and internet banking related cyber frauds.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Bank 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.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent – Bank.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. In view of the submissions so made, this Court is of the considered view that merely because a certain amount has been transferred to the petitioner's bank account in an alleged fraudulent transaction, the act of freezing the entire bank account and imposing complete restriction on banking t