##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:13408]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19836/2025

Vijay S/o Shri Vasudev Keswani, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Shri Shyam Vatika, Jaisinghpura Shekhawatan, Jaipur

(Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Punjab National Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Brahmpuri, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mohammed Anees For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha and

Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG

Mr. Shashank Jain for Mr. Vikas Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

30/03/2026

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

prayers:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully & humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to

accept and allow this writ petition and :

i) by appropriate order, writ or direction, respondent no.2 Punjab National Bank be directed to unfreezing bank account no.2976000100177819 of the

petitioner;

ii) by appropriate order, writ or direction, direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate its bank account no.2976000100177819 in respondent

no. 2 Punjab National Bank;

(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 10:20:34 AM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:45:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13408] (2 of 4) [CW-19836/2025]

iii) In alternate, respondent No. 2 bank keep lien of disputed amount Rs. 8,547/- to the extent it relates to the offence subject to the outcome of investigation. Keeping such amount under lien, respondent no. 2 bank shall allow the petitioner to operate his bank account & transactions of remaining

undisputed amount in accordance with law, iv) Any other order, writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper, may also 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 the disputed amount is Rs.8,547/- and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen strictly in compliance of

financial cyber fraud complaint(s).

(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 10:20:34 AM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:45:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13408] (3 of 4) [CW-19836/2025] 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 kee