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)
