[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Tanaji Beragal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16254) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:16254]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7713/2026
Anil Tanaji Beragal S/o Tanaji Beragal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
- Gharniki, Atpadi, District Sangli, State Maharashtra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Police Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal Represented By Its
Director, National Highway-8, Mahalipur, New Delhi, Pin-
110037
3. The Commissioner Of Police, Home Department, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Branch Manager/nodal Officer, Icici Bank, High Court
Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
08/04/2026
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:-
"...(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent may kindly be directed to de-freeze the ICICI
bank, bearing Account no:-683105601419 IFSC code:-
ICIC0006831, of the petitioner in respondent bank.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent may kindly be directed to not freeze the
bank account of the petitioner in future without prior
notice.
(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioner."
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:19:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16254] (2 of 3) [CW-7713/2026]
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition
with a direction to the ICICI Bank (Respondent No.4) 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
70-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:19:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16254] (3 of 3) [CW-7713/2026]
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:19:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
