[2026:RJ-JP:11121]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4022/2026 Sonu Kirana Store, 01, Sh 22, Chowk Bazar, Near Ramlila Stage, Pahari (Raj.), Through Proprietor, Harichand S/o Chirangji R/o

302, Koli Mohala, Pahari Tehsil Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Canara Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch-

Pahari, Tehsil- Pahari, District Deeg (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidharth Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Meena and Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Shashank Jain for Mr. Vikas Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

16/03/2026

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

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof hereby;

1. Direct the respondents to immediately unfreeze the Petitioner bank account, bearing, account number 120023817729, maintained with Respondent No.2, CANARA BANK, IFSC Code: CNRB0003819.

2. Declare the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account without authority or due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)

(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India;

3. Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.”

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in the petitioner's account may be frozen, the amount other than the disputed amount may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and the petitioner may be allowed to operate and carry out the banking transactions from the said bank account.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 has placed on record the communication made by the Bank, as per which, the disputed amount is Rs.40/-, Rs.1011/- Rs.50/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.2000/-, total amount being Rs.3,151/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of financial cyber fraud complaints.

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. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent – Bank to de-freeze the bank accou