[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Alias Bapu Anandrao Kane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2916
-1-
REVN-377-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2025
Mr. Chandrakant @ Bapu Anandrao Kane,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Business,
R/o. Raje Sambhaji Chouk, Behind Kane Bus Stop,
Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Dharashiv. ... Applicant
(Accused No.10)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Tamalvadi Police Station,
Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Dharashiv. .... Respondent
......
Mr. Nitin S. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Respondent - State.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 22 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JANUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. In present revision, there is challenge to the order dated
12.11.2025 passed by Special Judge, Osmanabad below Exh.1 in
Criminal M.A. No.61/2025 rejecting application for release of seized
vehicle.
2. One Crime bearing No.22/2025 came to be registered at
Tamalwadi Police Station, District Dharashiv, on report dated 15.02.2025
on receipt of secret information regarding transportation and possession
REVN-377-2025
of psychotropic substance banned under NDPS Act. Accordingly, after
taking necessary steps of informing superior, trap was planned and the
raiding party visited premises of a toll naka and came across a blue
colour car bearing MH-25-R-5598 parked near the laboratory in
suspicious condition, and therefore, raiding party approached it, found
three persons occupying the car, inquiry was made with them and they
gave their names as Amit @ Chimya Ashokrao Argade, Yuvraj Devidas
Dalvi and Sandip Sanjay Rathod and on further inquiry it emerged that,
they were in possession of M.D.drugs. After summoning the panchas,
search of the vehicle was taken and beneath the seat, above drugs were
found. Resultantly, both, three persons arrested as well as vehicle was
seized and after registering crime, investigation was carried out and
subsequently, present revision petitioner also came to be apprehended
and the vehicle owned by him bearing no. MH-25-AK-1010 was also
seized, regarding which prayers for release of vehicle are made out.
3. Learned counsel for revision applicant pointed out that,
applicant was not named in the FIR and he was not present during search
and seizure of another vehicle. That, subsequently on alleged statement
of one driver of applicant, investigating machinery claims to have learnt
that his vehicle was used for transporting drugs from Mumbai. That, only
on such statement, his vehicle is seized. Said vehicle is of personal use
REVN-377-2025
and moreover, it is obtained on finance. Now, the said vehicle is standing
idle since its seizure and its condition is getting deteriorated due to its
non use. That, merely charge-sheet has been filed and trial is yet to
commence and it would further take longtime for even conclusion of
trial. Hence, during pendency fo the trial as custody of the vehicle was
needed, he pointed out that, application was made before the learned
trial court for return of said property, the same came to be rejected.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that, the applicant is the
real owner. There are papers in his name. Vehicle is required for personal
use and moreover by keeping the vehicle standing idle, its condition is
getting deteriorated and therefore, learned counsel for revision applicant
seeks reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam , reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 and the
judgment of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 267 of 2024 in the
case of Swapnil S/o. Ganesh Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra ., he urged
to release the vehicle by imposing conditions which she agrees to abide.
5. Learned APP opposed on the ground that, in serious offence
like NDPS Act, vehicle in question has been seized. He apprehends
possibility of tampering and disposing of vehicle and resultantly he
justifies the order of rejection passed by learned trial court.
REVN-377-2025
6. Heard. Here, by virtue of registration of crime bearing
No.22/2025 for offence punishable under section 8(c), 21(b), 27, 27(a),
29, 68(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Vehicle bearing No. MH-25-R-5598 was seized on 14.02.2025 alleging
that the persons named above were occupants of the said vehicle and in
the said vehicle contraband was found, and therefore, after taking all
three persons into custody, contraband was also seized. Papers shows
that, during investigation, further involvement of other persons were
detected including that of present applicant and he was duly arraigned as
accused no.10. Statement of driver of present applicant seems to be
recorded on 06.08.2025, wherein he stated that he was driver of
Fortuner Car bearing no. MH-25-AK-1010 and his owner i.e. present
applicant on 04.02.2024 sent him to Mumbai for collecting parcel from
the same place from where previously he had brought the parcel and
accordingly on such statement, Investigating Machinery seems to have
picked up and seized the vehicle, which is now sought to be released.
7. Since seizure of said vehicle on 31.03.2025, said vehicle is
lying in the custody at police station. Statement is made across the bar
that charge sheet has been filed and trial has not yet commenced.
Learned counsel for revision petitioner has undertaken to abide all
conditions, which would be imposed while releasing the vehicle.
According to him, vehicle is for his personsal use and moreover is said to
REVN-377-2025
be taken on finance. The application before trial court was rejected and
hence, present revision. Even before this court, learned APP opposed the
revision and expressing apprehension of disposal or conversion of the
property, which is a muddemal.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala
Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, has laid down the
guidelines for release of property like vehicle. Admittedly, trial is yet to
commence. As submitted, no purpose would be served by keeping the
vehicle idle at police station. Vehicle seems to be seized only on the
statement of driver of present applicant that said vehicle was used to go
to Mumbai and to bring a parcel. At the time of FIR, only three accused
named therein were arrested, and the vehicle in which they were found
allegedly containing the contraband is already seized.
9. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, when there are
no immediate chances of trial commences soon and to avoid
deterioration of the condition of the vehicle by keeping it idle, vehicle can
be permitted to be released by imposing conditions. Consequently,
revision deserves to be allowed.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
instant revision is allowed and the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Osmanabad is hereby set-aside.
REVN-377-2025
11. Accordingly, interim custody of vehicle is allowed in favour
of revision applicant/registered owner subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The applicant shall produce valid proof of ownership of the
vehicle.
(ii) On due verifications of its papers on the point of ownership,
vehicle bearing no. MH-25-AK-1010 is directed to be handed over to
revision applicant on he executing bond of Rs.10,00,000/- and furnishing
an undertaking that he shall not sell, alter, transfer, part with possession
of, create any third-party interest in or change the nature of vehicle in
any manner until the conclusion of the trial.
(iii) Investigating Officer to retain certified photocopies of the RC
particulars of the vehicle and shall prepare a detailed panchanama.
(iv) Applicant shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by
Investigation Officer or the trial court.
12. The Revision stands disposed off in aforesaid terms.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
