Introduction

• Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur.
• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anuroop Singhi.
• Matter: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1546/2026.
• Petitioner: Shivam Sharma (aged about 20 years), Kathumar, Alwar.
• Respondents: (1) State of Rajasthan (Secretary, Dept. of Home Affairs); (2) Bank of Baroda (Branch Manager, Kathumar Road, Kherli).
• Order Date: 12 February 2026.

Case Background

• Relief sought: Petitioner sought writs (mandamus or appropriate directions) to unfreeze his Bank of Baroda current account No. 43668100008032, to permit operation of the account except for any legitimately disputed amount, to direct the bank to transfer disputed funds back to original account if required, and to require the bank to disclose written reasons/communications from cyber‑crime authorities.
• Context: The petitioner’s account had been frozen in connection with an ongoing investigation into a financial cyber‑fraud complaint. Petitioner denied any misuse or involvement in fraud and offered full cooperation with investigating agencies.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the bank’s blanket freeze of the petitioner’s entire account is justified where only a specific disputed sum is alleged to have been credited.
2. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to operate the account for legitimate transactions while the disputed amount remains under lien.
3. Whether the bank must disclose the disputed amount and reasons for freezing, and whether the petitioner may be restrained from closing the account until investigation concludes.

Parties’ Submissions

• Petitioner (Mr. Adarsh Singhal): Asserted innocence; willing to cooperate with bank and investigating agencies; requested that only the disputed amount be frozen and the remaining balance be made available for withdrawal and transactions.
• Bank (Bank of Baroda counsel Ms. Divakriti Vashistha / Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma): Informed the Court that the disputed amount credited to the petitioner’s account is ₹7,108.28 and that the account was frozen in connection with an ongoing cyber‑fraud investigation; requested that the petitioner not discontinue the account until investigation or criminal proceedings conclude.
• State (AAG Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma): Submitted that since the petitioner is the beneficiary of funds involved in a financial cyber‑fraud complaint and investigation is ongoing, judicial interference is not warranted beyond preserving the disputed sum.

Court’s Observations and Reasoning

• Proportionality: The Court held that freezing the entire bank account merely because a certain amount was credited in an alleged fraudulent transaction would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s rights. The appropriate and proportionate measure is to keep a lien only on the amount that relates to the alleged fraudulent transaction.
• Balance of interests: The Court balanced the investigatory interest in preserving allegedly tainted funds against the petitioner’s right to access legitimate funds for daily needs and lawful transactions.
• Cooperation and conditions: The Court accepted the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate and imposed the condition that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account until the investigating agencies and bank authorities permit.

Operative Order

• Primary direction: Bank of Baroda is directed to de‑freeze account No. 43668100008032 and permit the petitioner to operate the account for transactions beyond the disputed amount.
• Specific lien: The disputed sum of ₹7,108.28 (credited in connection with the alleged fraudulent transaction) shall remain frozen.
• Conditions:
• The petitioner must cooperate with bank authorities and investigating agencies and appear when required.
• The petitioner shall not close or discontinue the bank account until permitted by investigating agencies or bank authorities.
• If post‑investigation the petitioner is found involved in illegal transactions, he will be liable to repay the amount and face legal consequences as per law.
• Clarification: The order is limited to de‑freezing and does not determine the merits of the underlying cyber‑fraud complaint.

Key Takeaways and Practical Implications

• Proportionate relief is the norm: Courts will generally limit freezes to the specific disputed amount rather than allow blanket freezes that deny access to legitimate funds.
• Transparency and minimal hardship: Banks should preserve investigatory interests by earmarking/placing lien on tainted sums while enabling account‑holders to use the remainder for lawful needs.
• Account continuity: Courts may require account‑holders to keep the account active during investigation to preserve traceability and cooperation.
• Conditional nature: De‑freezing is procedural and conditional; substantive liability remains subject to investigation and trial.