Introduction
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anuroop Singhi
Matter: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1872/2026
Petitioner: Asha Jat (D/o Shankar Lal Jat), resident of Rajarampura, Jaipur
Respondents:
(1) State of Rajasthan (Secretary, Department of Home Affairs)
(2) AU Small Finance Bank, Chomu Branch
Order Date: 09 February 2026
Case Background
Relief Sought:
The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions for defreezing her AU Small Finance Bank account No. 1915216422520316, permitting operation of the account except with respect to any legitimately disputed amount, directing disclosure of written communications or reasons received from cyber-crime authorities regarding the freezing of the account, and directing return of disputed funds to the originating account if required in accordance with law.
Context:
The petitioner’s bank account was frozen pursuant to directions issued through the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) / Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) in connection with an ongoing investigation relating to an alleged internet-banking fraud. The petitioner denied any involvement in the alleged fraud and expressed willingness to cooperate fully with the investigating authorities.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the blanket freezing of the petitioner’s entire bank account was justified where only a specific disputed amount was alleged to have been credited.
- Whether the petitioner should be permitted to operate the account for legitimate transactions while the disputed amount remains under lien.
- What conditions should be imposed while granting procedural relief of defreezing, including cooperation requirements and maintenance of account continuity during investigation.
Parties’ Submissions
Petitioner:
Learned counsel Mr. Adarsh Singhal, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Devra, submitted that the petitioner had not misused the account and was prepared to cooperate with the investigating authorities. It was requested that the bank be directed to retain lien only on the disputed amount and allow the petitioner to operate the remaining balance for legitimate financial transactions.
Respondent Bank / State Representatives:
Counsel appearing for AU Small Finance Bank and the State informed the Court that the disputed amount credited to the petitioner’s account was approximately ₹6,043.23, and that the freezing of the account had been carried out in compliance with directions issued through the NCRP/I4C system in connection with an ongoing cyber-fraud investigation. It was further requested that the petitioner be directed not to close or discontinue the account until completion of the investigation.
State:
The State submitted that the petitioner was the beneficiary of funds forming part of a financial cyber-fraud complaint and that the investigation was ongoing. It was therefore contended that judicial interference should be limited so as to preserve investigatory interests while ensuring appropriate procedural safeguards.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
Proportionality:
The Court observed that freezing the entire bank account merely because a certain amount had been credited in connection with an alleged fraudulent transaction would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s rights. The proper course, therefore, was to retain lien only on the amount directly connected with the alleged fraudulent transaction.
Balancing of Interests:
The Court balanced the necessity of preserving allegedly tainted funds for investigative purposes with the petitioner’s right to access legitimate funds for lawful financial activities and day-to-day needs.
Cooperation and Conditions:
Considering the petitioner’s assurance of cooperation, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account during the pendency of the investigation without permission from the investigating agencies or the bank authorities.
Operative Order
Primary Direction:
AU Small Finance Bank is directed to defreeze Account No. 1915216422520316 and permit the petitioner to operate the account for transactions beyond the disputed amount.
Specific Lien:
The disputed amount of ₹6,043.23, credited in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction, shall remain under freeze or lien until further orders or completion of the investigation.
Conditions:
- The petitioner shall cooperate with the bank authorities and investigating agencies and shall appear before them whenever required.
- The petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account without permission from the investigating agencies or the bank authorities.
- If, upon completion of investigation, the petitioner is found involved in any illegal transactions, she shall be liable to repay the concerned amount and face legal consequences in accordance with law.
Scope of the Order:
The directions issued are procedural in nature and shall not be construed as an adjudication on the merits of the underlying cyber-fraud allegations.
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
Proportionate Relief:
The decision reiterates that freezing measures must be proportionate and limited to the specific disputed amount rather than imposing blanket restrictions over the entire account balance.
Transparency and Minimal Hardship:
The order reflects the judicial approach of safeguarding investigatory interests while minimizing hardship to account holders by permitting access to legitimate funds.
Account Continuity During Investigation:
Courts may require account holders to keep their accounts active during the course of investigation to facilitate monitoring, cooperation, and financial traceability.
Conditional Nature of Relief:
Defreezing orders are procedural and conditional; substantive liability of the account holder remains subject to the outcome of investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings.
Suggested Next Steps
For the Petitioner:
Utilize restored account access strictly for legitimate transactions, comply with investigative requirements, and maintain proper records of transactions and communications.
For the Bank:
Maintain lien over the disputed amount of ₹6,043.23, restore account operations for the remaining balance, and document all communications with the investigating authorities and the petitioner.
For Investigating Agencies:
Continue the investigation and, if additional tainted amounts are identified, communicate the specific amounts with supporting material to the bank to justify any further lien or freezing action in accordance with law.