Bombay High Court
Tarachand Narayandas Bajaj vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Telhara ... on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
28wp897.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 897/2021
Tarachand Narayandas Bajaj ...Versus...State of Maharashtra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
Mr. V.B.Bhise, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. I. Damle, APP for Respondent/State
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/01/2022
Heard Mr. Bhise, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Damle, learned APP for respondent/
State. The Investigating Officer is also present.
The petition challenges the order dated
6.1.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Telhara, on an
application seeking return of the muddemal property
seized by the Police Station Telhara in Crime No.
287/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of
the Indian Penal Code.
It was claimed that the property seized was
owned by the petitioner/applicant and was stolen from the
residence of the petitioner/applicant on 20.9.2020. The
application was rejected by the JMFC, Telhara, by the
order dated 6.1.2021 holding that there was a difference
in the value of the muddemal property, in as much as the
informant had claimed its value to be Rs. 1,78,000/-
28wp897.21.odt
including Rs.12000/- cash and one samsung cellphone,
however, the value of the seized property including the
ornaments was found to be Rs. 6,48,500/-. The learned
Sessions Court by its judgment dated 12.10.2021 has
rejected the revision on the ground that the description of
the ornaments did not match and ownership was not
established by filing proper receipts.
Mr. Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the record would demonstrate that the
accused had committed one single theft at the house of the
informant alone on the fateful night and the statement of
the accused also indicates that the property which was
seized was stolen by him from the house of the informant.
He therefore submits that though the description may not
have been identical due to oversight, however, considering
the above position, it is apparent on record that the
property belongs to the petitioner/applicant. He also
invites my attention to the observation by the learned trial
Court in para 2 of the order dated 6.1.2021, in which the
I.O. has given his no objection for return of the property to
the petitioner/applicant. The I.O. is present in the Court
today and reiterates his stand before the learned JMFC
that he has no objection for the property being returned to
the petitioner/applicant.
[
Though the learned APP supports the
impugned order, and submits that the property would be
required during the course of trial, however, considering
28wp897.21.odt
that on the fateful day the accused had committed a single
theft at the residence of the petitioner/applicant and the
property seized has been admitted by the accused to have
been stolen from the residence of the petitioner
/applicant, though there may be some discrepancy in the
description of the property, prima facie indicates that the
property belongs to the applicant.
Considering the above position, I do not see
any reason for the property to continue in the custody of
the State. Any apprehension regarding the safety and
production of the property can be taken care of by
imposing conditions. I therefore allow the petition.
Consequently, Misc. Criminal Application No.331/2020
filed before the learned JMFC, Telhara, is hereby allowed
and the seized property be placed in possession of the
petitioner/applicant, subject to the condition of the
petitioner/applicant executing a bond in the sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- along with one solvent surety in the like
amount for the safety and production of the property
before the learned JMFC as and when called upon. It is
made clear that the petitioner/applicant shall not change
the nature of the property, nor shall be entitled to deal
with or transfer the property in any manner whatsoever
and shall be fully responsible for its safe keeping and
custody.
28wp897.21.odt
JUDGE
rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:14.01.2022 11:07
