Divakar Shankar Shetty vs The State Of Mharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 15667 Bom

Rane                          1/3                 WP-3031-2019(SR.6)
                                                    October 29,2021.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          WRIT PETITION NO. 3031 OF 2019



Divakar Shankar Shetty                      .....Petitioner
     V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and
Ors.                                        .....Respondents

                      ****

Ms. Minal J. Chandnani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for State.

Investigating Officer, PSI Mr. N.V. Pawar from Khar Police
Station present.

                 Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Friday, 29th October, 2021.

P.C. :

1. Heard.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenges the order dated 11 th March,

2019 by which the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 th

Court, Bandra, declined to, return the property allegedly Rane 2/3 WP-3031-2019(SR.6) October 29,2021.

seized from the possession of the petitioner-accused, in the

crime registered against him under Sections 4 and 5 of the

Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act with the Khar Police

Station, Mumbai.

3. Accused moved an application for return of the

property i.e. 13 video game machines, worth Rs.15,000/-.

Alongwith an application, petitioner had also filed an

Affidavit and undertook that, he will not dispose off or sell

the said property till the decision in the subject case and

further undertook to execute the bond equivalent to the

value of the property.

4. The learned Court, declined to release the

property on the ground that, petitioner did not produce the

license for running the video-game parlour and likelihood or

chances of using the video game machines by the petitioners

cannot be ruled out.

5. Here, the machines were seized and lying ideal

since January, 2019. Petitioner, on affidavit, has undertaken

that, he will not dispose off the machines until the conclusion Rane 3/3 WP-3031-2019(SR.6) October 29,2021.

of the trial. Learned Counsel, on instructions, has agreed to

file a Affidavit to state that, petitioner shall not use the said

machines for the business of video game parlour. In

consideration of these facts and keeping in mind the

judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai Versus. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 Supreme

Court Cases 283, I am inclined to direct the respondent to

release the property seized, more particularly, described in

the application dated 5th January, 2019 which is at page-22 of

the petition. The petition is allowed subject to an

Undertaking, as stated above, which shall be filed, within

three weeks from today in the concerned Court and against

executing a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petition is

allowed and disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT   Date:
         2021.10.29
         18:00:48
         +0530



                                                           (Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)