Bombay High Court
Mahananda Suresh Shelar vs Suresh Parshuram Shelar And Anr on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:35252
1/5 904-IA-1900-25-IN-APEAL-1217-12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1900 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1217 OF 2012
Mahananda Suresh Shelar .... Applicant
versus
Suresh Parshuram Shelar & Ors.. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Mohit Dalvi a/w Aarya V. Ambulkar, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mr. Mohan N. Devkule, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
• Ms. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent No.2.
• Mr. Shreeram Shirsat, Spl. P.P. a/w Mr. Nikhil Daga a/w Antara
Kulkarni a/w Shekhar Mane, Advocate for Respondent
No.3/CBI.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2025
P.C. :
1. This is an application for return of ornaments of the
Applicant, which were seized by the Officers of the Respondent
No.3 CBI ACB, Mumbai, during the investigation, which resulted
in Special Case No.45/2002 before the learned Special Judge,
CBI, Mumbai.
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2025.08.14
17:30:00
+0530
2. Heard Mr. Mohit Dalvi, learned Counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Mohan N. Devkule, learned counsel for the
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:54:33 :::
2/5 904-IA-1900-25-IN-APEAL-1217-12.odt
Respondent No.1, Mr. Shreeram Shirsat, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.3 and Ms. Sangita D. Shinde, learned APP for
the State.
3. On 05/08/2025 and 12/08/2025 time was sought by
the Respondent No.3 to file reply. But till today reply is not filed.
However, looking at the urgency, I am deciding this application.
4. The application is for return of the gold ornaments as
mentioned earlier. They are in the custody of the Trial Court.
The Applicant's husband was prosecuted in the said Special Case
No.45/2002 on the allegations that during the check period
from 01/01/1995 to 07/12/2000, he possessed assets
disproportionate to the known source of income to the tune of
Rs.18,86,244/-. He was convicted for commission of offence
punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for three months. The cash amount of
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:54:33 :::
3/5 904-IA-1900-25-IN-APEAL-1217-12.odt
Rs.15,00,000/- was directed to be credited to the Government.
Vide clause 3 of the operative part of the order, it was directed
that the gold ornaments sized vide Panchanama Ex.73 be
returned to the wife of the accused after the Appeal period was
over.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant is in dire need of money as her husband i.e. the
original accused is suffering from cancer. She herself is a Senior
Citizen and is suffering from various health issues. Therefore, she
is in need of money. The ornaments in question were 'Stridhan'
and had nothing to do with the assets involved in the case.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 does not
have serious objection for allowing this application.
7. I have considered these submissions. In paragraph
No.32 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference to the
seizure of jewellery belonging to the Applicant. It is also
mentioned in paragraph No.34 that as per the prosecution case,
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:54:33 :::
4/5 904-IA-1900-25-IN-APEAL-1217-12.odt
the accused during the relevant period possessed assets of gold
ornaments worth Rs.2,27,990/-. The same paragraph mentions
that P.W.18 had received Rs.14,000/- from the accused for
purchasing bangles. But there was no evidence on record to
show that the accused had purchased gold ornaments seized by
the prosecution worth Rs.2,27,990/-.
8. In paragraph No.35, it is observed that it was not
shown to the Court that the accused had purchased gold
ornaments in his name. The operative part clearly indicates that
the seized ornaments were directed to be returned to the
Applicant after the Appeal period was over. Therefore, there is
force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicant
that it was 'Stridhan' and it had nothing to do with the assets for
which the prosecution was lodged. The application also
mentions that the original accused i.e. the husband of the
Applicant is suffering from cancer. The Applicant herself is of 64
years of age. She has retired from service and has her own
health issues.
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:54:33 :::
5/5 904-IA-1900-25-IN-APEAL-1217-12.odt
9. Considering this aspect, it would be just and proper
and in fact it is necessary that the ornaments are returned to her
as early as possible. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this
application.
10. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (c), which reads thus:
c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
direct that as per order 31/10/2012
passed by the Learned Special Judge for
CBI at Mumbai in Special Case No.45 of
2002, the gold ornaments seized vide
Panchanama dated 08/12/2000 at Exhibit
73 be given in the custody of the present
applicant.
(ii) The application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
