Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohit Parmani vs The Branch Manager/Nodal Officer ... on 13 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:17105]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8057/2026
Mohit Parmani S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of
17/233, Choupasani Board, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Branch Manager/nodal Officer, Icici Bank Through
Branch Manager, Nai Sadak, Jodhpur.
2. Cyber Crime Police Station, Nagpur City (Mh)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni
Ms. Neelam Soni
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 13/04/2026
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and (1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may be directed to Un-freeze the bank account and money of the petitioner.
(iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to unfreeze the bank account and freeze the disputed money
(v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to not freeze the bank account of the petitioner in future without any just reason and reasonable evidence against the petitioner of being involved in any cyber fraudulent activity.
(vi) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems Just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the Petitioner.."
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition (Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:05:47 PM) (Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:43:37 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17105] (2 of 2) [CW-8057/2026] with a direction to the ICICI Bank (Respondent No.1) to keep the disputed amount (the amount which was transferred illegally in the bank account of the petitioner) frozen and allow the petitioner to make transactions from his bank account from the remaining balance.
3. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent - Bank has not received the information regarding the exact figure of the disputed amount, which the Investigating Officer/Police alleges to be receipt(s) of the offence, the bank shall send a communication to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, to indicate the amount to be earmarked for lien, while endorsing a copy of the instant order.
4. Upon receipt of such communication/letter, the concerned Investigating Officer/Police shall be under an obligation to apprise the respondent - Bank about the amount to be kept in lien, within a period of seven days of receiving the communication from the respondent - Bank. The respondent - bank shall thereafter do the needful as directed herein above.
5. It is further made clear that in case, the respondent-Bank does not receive any reply from the concerned Investigating Officer/Police, then it shall be duty bound to act in accordance with the instant order.
6. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 82-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:05:47 PM) (Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:43:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)