[2026:RJ-JP:11140]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 614/2026 Mohammed Tarmeen S/o Mohammed Yaseen, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 67 Nagtalai Jda Quarter Hudko Colony Jaipur City Jaipur Rajasthan 302003.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Lal Kothi Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. The State House Officer, B Division Jamnagar City (Gujarat).

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Home Department Jamnagar City (Gujarat).

4. The Commissionerate Cyber Crime, Jamnagar City (Gujarat)

5. The Branch Manager/nodal Officer Of IndusInd Bank Branch, 1990, 1St Floor, Juniwal Bhawan Ram Lallaka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302003.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mr. V.D. Agnihotri For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha with Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Harshita Singhal with Ms. Neha Sharma for Mr. Vineet Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

16/03/2026

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

“It is prayed that this writ Petition may be allowed and accepted and appropriate writ, order, directions may be given to respondent to allow operation in above aforesaid current account 259928823675 at IndusInd Bank Branch 1990, 1^st Floor, Juniwal Bhawan Ram Lallaka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302003 by keeping freezed/lien marked disputed amount of rupees 9,000/- only and defreezed account number 259928823675 at IndusInd Bank Branch 1990, 1^st Floor, Juniwal Bhawan Ram Lallaka Rastha, Johri Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302003 (respondent number

5).

Any other relief which lordship may deem just and proper in these facts and circumstances may also be granted 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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account.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 Rs.9,000/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen pursuant to a financial cyber fraud complaint.

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 respondent – State submits that as the petitioner is the beneficiary of an amount involved in a financial cyber fraud complaint and the investigation is undergoing, no interference is called for at this stage.

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

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. 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.

11. Conseq