SMT. FIRDOS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. SMT. FIRDOS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38233] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7322/2026 CNR: RJHC010816952026 | URN: CRLMP / 12642U / 2026 Smt. Firdos W/o Sh Mo Arif, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Fort Road District Nagaur Rajasthan 341001 (A/c No. 671801702836 With Icici Bank, Nagaur Branch Rajasthan - Ifsc Icici0006718) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Icici Bank Ltd, Through Its Branch Manager Nagaur Branch Kile Ki Dhal Station Road Nagaur. 3. Icici Bank Ltd, Through Its Circle Head Rajasthan Circle 4. Superintendent Of Police Ccd-L, Madurai City State Of Tamil Nadu 5. Director General Of Police Cyber Crime, Police Headquarters Jaipur 6. Station House Officer Cyber Police Station, Madurai City Tamil Nadu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Augustine For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 10/08/2026 1. The instant criminal misc.
petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(i)Direct Respondents No. 1 & 2 (ICICI Bank) to unfreeze the Petitioner's ICICI BANK Savings Account No. 671801702836 IFSC ICIC0006718 and release the lawful balance retaining only disputed funds, if any, under lien. (ii) Direct the respondents not to freeze the Petitioner's account in future without prior notice or sufficient legal justification. (iii) By an appropriate misc. , order, or direction, the respondent may be directed not to freeze the petitioner's [2026:RJ-JP:38233] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7322/2026] account in the future without providing prior notice or sufficient legal justification. (iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice may kindly 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 criminal misc.
petition with a direction to the ICICI Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 2 and 3) 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 her 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. With the aforesaid directions, the instant criminal misc. petition is disposed of. [2026:RJ-JP:38233] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7322/2026] 7. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J 257/Sonia
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.