[2026:RJ-JP:8839]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1736/2026 Pratibha Ojha D/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Shiv Colony, Khora Bisal, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Bank Of India, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch- Sarna Doongar, G-1/93, Sarna Dungar Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Pin-302012.

2. Intelligence Fusion And Strategic Operations, Cyber Crime Unit, Delhi Police, Sector-16-C Dwarka, New Delhi

110078.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mr. Yenu Satyan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Pujari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

25/02/2026

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

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Writ petition and further be pleased to :-

(a) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned action/inaction of the Respondents whereby the Bank Account of petitioner is Freezed in arbitrary and illegal manner;

(b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing the respondents to Unfreeze petitioner’s SBI Bank Account No.

42371491243;

(c) Any other appropriate Order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account.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 is around Rs.100/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen in connection with on-going investigation in financial cyber fraud.

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 transactions at this stage will seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner. At the most, the Bank can keep a lien on the amount to the extent it relates to the alleged fraudulent transaction(s) credited in the petitioner’s bank account.

10. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent – Bank to de-freeze the bank account No. 42371491243 of the petitioner maintained at State Bank of India, Branch Sarna Doongar, G-1/93, Sarna Doongar Industrial Area, Jaipur, and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out banking transactions in the said bank account over and above the disputed amount, in accordance with law. However, the disputed amount i.e., Rs.100/- which has been credited in the petitioner’s