Umesh Joshi S/O Govindram Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5538 Bom

Judgment

                                                                      apl658.16 18

                                        1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

         CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.658 OF 2016

Umesh Joshi s/o Govindram Joshi,
Aged about 48 years, Occupation Business,
Resident of Plot Number 98, Pande Layout,
Khamla, Nagpur - 440 025.                             ..... Applicant.

                                 ::   VERSUS   ::

State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector, 
Dhantoli Police Station, Dhantoli, 
Nagpur - 440 014.                                     ..... Non-applicant.

================================================================
           Shri G.L. Bajaj, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
                                DATE    : AUGUST 3, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.              Rule.   Rule is made returnable forthwith.   Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.




                                                                            .....2/-




  ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:46:50 :::
 Judgment

                                                                   apl658.16 18

                                     2

2.              The present applicant is complainant.  He lodged a

report with Dhantoli Police Station on 4.7.2015.  On the basis

of   his   report,   Dhantoli   Police   Station   recorded   an   offence

under  Section  392  read with   Section  34 of  the Indian  Penal

Code,   1860   vide   Crime   No.178   of   2015.     The   said   first

information report points out that when he was returning to

his   home,   he   was   having   Rs.15.00   lacs   with   him   being   the

amount of sale proceedings.  When he was about to board his

vehicle, accused persons snatched away the bag from him.


3.           During   the   course   of   investigation,   the   police

authorities were able to apprehend accused persons including

delinquent in conflict with law.  From them, part amount was

recovered.   The applicant moved an application for return of

that   part   amount   before   the   Court   below.     The   said

application   was   rejected   on   the   ground   that   nothing   is




                                                                         .....3/-




  ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:46:50 :::
 Judgment

                                                                        apl658.16 18

                                        3

brought on record as to how on the said day he was having

Rs.15.00   lacs   with   him.     Also,   other   offence   is   registered   at

Police   Station   Tahsil.     So,   it   is   quite   possible   that   the   said

amount may concern with the offence registered with Tahsil

Police Station.


4.              Learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   Shri   R.S.

Nayak for the non-applicant/State, in paragraph No.8 of reply-

affidavit   dated   15.7.2017,   fairly   pointed   out   that   in   crime

which was registered bearing Crime No.154 of 2015 at Police

Station   Tahsil   final   report   is   already   sent   and   the   accused

persons in that crime are not detected at all.  It is crystal clear

that the amount, which is seized from the accused persons, is

relating to the present applicant.


5.              Learned counsel Shri G.L. Bajaj for the applicant

submits that he is ready to give security to the satisfaction of



                                                                              .....4/-




  ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:46:50 :::
 Judgment

                                                                                         apl658.16 18

                                                 4

learned Magistrate as well as Juvenile Justice Board.


6.                In   that   view   of   the   matter,   I   pass   the   following

order :


                                            ORDER

i) The criminal application is allowed.

ii) The amount of Rs.7,64,000/- be returned to the

applicant on he executing a necessary document

giving security to the satisfaction of learned

Magistrate as well as the Juvenile Justice Board.

With this, the criminal application is allowed and

disposed of. Rule is made absolute.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-