[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nisar Abdul Rehman Shaikh And Ors vs The Senior Inspector Of Police And Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:12235
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2025
Khalil Usman Mulla ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Senior Inspector of Police, through
Bazarpeth Police Station, Kalyan
2. The Senior Inspector of Police, Economic
SANTOSH Offences Wing, Thane
SUBHASH
KULKARNI 3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
Special Investigation Team (SIT) Thane
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.03.12
21:38:31 +0530
Police Commissionerate, Thane.
4. State of Maharshtra ...Respondents
WITH
INTERVENTION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 23871 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2025
Nisar Abdul Rehman Shaikh and ors. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Khalil Usman Mulla ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Senior Inspector of Police and ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4712 OF 2025
Sharib Nasir Mulla ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Senior Inspector of Police, through
Bazarpeth Police Station, Kalyan
2. The Senior Inspector of Police, Economic
Offences Wing, Thane
3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Special Investigation Team (SIT) Thane
Police Commissionerate, Thane.
4. State of Maharshtra ...Respondents
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:27:59 :::
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
WITH
INTERVENTION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 23372 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4712 OF 2025
Nisar Abdul Rehman Shaikh and ors. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Khalil Usman Mulla ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Senior Inspector of Police and ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Mubin Solkar, a/w Tahira Qureshi, Hemal Shah and Zahid
Barud, i/b Tahir Hussain, for the Petitioner in
WP/2966/2025.
Mr. Mubin Solkar, a/w Tahira Qureshi, Hemal Shah and Zahid
Barud, i/b Anas Khalid Shaikh, for the Petitioner in
WP/4712/2025.
Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for the State.
Mr. Prachish Shukla, for the Interveners in both IA.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 12th MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, ("BNSS") assail almost identical orders dated 15 th
February, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalyan, in MA/188/2024 and MA/187/2024, whereby
the applications preferred by the petitioner for release of Toyota
Innova Car bearing Registration No.MH05-FG-0050 and Kia
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
Seltos Car bearing Registration No.MH05-FG-5050, respectively,
seized in connection with CR No.416/2024 registered with
Bazarpeth Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code") and Section 3 of the Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999 ("the MPID Act, 1999"), came to be rejected.
3. Yusuf Dhuru, who is arraigned in CR No.416/2024 was
the registered owner of the Toyota Innova Car bearing
Registration No.MH05-FG-0050, Chassis No.MBJABBAA3014
330870124 and Engine No.M20ANB77545 and Kia Seltos Car
bearing Registration No.MH05-FG-5050, Chassis No.MZBET813
MPN534157 and Engine No.D4FAPM909967. During the course
of investigation the said cars were seized by EOW, Thane.
4. The petitioners claim to be bona fide purchasers of the
said cars for valuable consideration. The accused Yusuf Dhuru
had offered to sell the said cars to the petitioners. For Toyota
Innova Car, the consideration was agreed at Rs.24,00,000/-.
The petitioner in WP/2966/2025 paid part consideration of
Rs.12,00,000/- in cash, in the month of September, 2024, and
the balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid via RTGS on
20th September, 2024. For Kia Seltos Car, the consideration was
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
fixed at Rs.14,00,000/-. The petitioner in WP/4712/2025 paid
the consideration in cash and through RTGS. Thereupon the
said vehicles came to be registered in the name of the respective
petitioners in the month of September, 2024. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer addressed a communication to the RTO not
to effect transfer in respect of the said vehicles on 14 th October,
2024. The petitioners claim that they bona fide surrendered the
vehicles alongwith all the original documents at the office of
EOW, Thane, on 29th October, 2024.
5. Asserting that the petitioners were the bona fide
purchasers and registered owners of the said vehicles,
applications were filed before the trial Court.
6. By the impugned order, the learned Judge was persuaded
to reject the application opining that the petitioners had
purchased the cars from Yusuf Dhuru, the accused, who was
involved in defrauding the flat purchasers to the tune of
Rs.1,82,00,000/-. Yusuf Dhuru apparently purchased the cars
by misappropriating the flat purchasers' money. Thereafter, the
accused dishonestly disposed of the above cars. Since the
prosecution was in the process to send a proposal to the
Government to sell the properties of the accused, release of the
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
cars in favour of the petitioners would create obstacles in the
process of attachment and sale of the properties of the accused.
7. Mr. Mubin Solkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the documents on record clearly demonstrate
that the transaction of purchase of the subject cars had taken
place before the Investigating Officer, gave intimation to the RTO
not to effect the transfer. Moreover, the petitioner, in the
respective petitions, had parted with valuable consideration as
is evident from the copies of the bank statements. In fact, the
Investigating Officer has drawn a conclusion that the accused
had deceived the petitioners as well, by selling the cars though
he was instructed not to transfer the cars. In this backdrop, the
learned Judge could not have rejected the applications for
return of the cars.
8. Mr. Solkar further submitted that the detention of the
seized vehicles at the Police Station serves no purpose. At any
rate, if the vehicles are released upon furnishing an appropriate
bond, the petitioners would co-operate with the prosecution
agency if any orders are passed under the provisions of the
MPID Act, 1999.
9. Mr. Metkari, the learned APP, resisted the petitions. It
was submitted that the transactions in question were entered
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
into by the accused with the petitioners with a view to defeat the
provisions of the MPID Act, 1999. The transactions, according to
the learned APP, were mala fide and hit by the provisions of
Section 8 of the MPID Act, 1999. It was submitted that in the
event the vehicles are released the rights of the depositors would
be severely prejudiced and the purpose of the MPID Act, 1999
would be defeated.
10. I have given careful consideration to the submissions
canvassed across the bar. In the case at hand, the timeline
assumes significance. Incontrovertibly, the subject vehicles
were registered in the name of Yusuf Dhuru. The claim of the
petitioners that they had parted with consideration in
pursuance of the contract to purchase the subject cars, in the
month of September, 2024, finds support in the copies of the
statements of accounts. It further appears that, the transfer of
the vehicle Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No.MH05-
FG-0050 was effected in the month of September, 2024 and the
certificate of registration was issued in the name of the
petitioner in WP/2966/2025 on 27th September, 2024, whereas
the transfer of the vehicle Kia Seltos Car bearing Registration
No.MH05-FG-5050 in the record of the RTO was also effected in
the month of September, 2024 and the registration certificate
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
was issued in the name of the petitioner in WP/4712/2025 on
30th September, 2024.
11. The prosecution claims that in the month of August, 2024,
the accused Yusuf Dhuru was instructed not to transfer the
said vehicles. However, it does not appear that the RTO was
informed by the Investigating Officer not to effect the transfer of
the above cars before the RTO effected the transfer and issued
the registration certificates in the name of the respective
petitioners.
12. The charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, post
conclusion of the investigation, also lends prima facie support to
the claim of the petitioners. The Investigating Officer has
categorically recorded that the accused, despite instructions,
not to transfer the cars, had sold the subject cars to the
petitioners by suppressing the said fact and thereby deceived
the petitioners. Conversely, there is no material to prima facie
indicate that the petitioners purchased the cars in connivance
with the accused.
13. In any event, the submissions of the learned APP that the
transfers are mala fide, do not merit acceptance. Firstly, it does
not appear that the Government has attached the subject cars
by invoking the powers under Section 4 of the MPID Act, 1999.
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
Secondly, as noted above, the petitioners are the registered
owners of the respective cars. The provisions of Section 8 of the
MPID Act, 1999, undoubtedly empower the Designated Court to
attach the properties which are transferred by the financial
establishment mala fide, if there is reasonable cause for
believing that the said financial establishment has transferred
any of the property otherwise than in good faith and for
consideration. However, the Designated Court is required to
provide an opportunity of hearing to the transferee of such
property to show cause why so much of the transferee's property
as is equivalent to the proper value of the property transferred
should not be attached.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, detaining the subject
cars in the police station would not serve any useful purpose. A
profitable reference can be made to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.
State of Gujarat1, wherein the Supreme Court has emphasised
that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the Police
Station for a long period. The Supreme Court has delineated
the approach to be adopted by the Court in dealing with an
1 (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283.
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
application for the return of the seized vehicles. The
observations in paragraphs 17and 18 read as under:
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as
well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at
any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the
accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third
person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by
the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance
company then insurance company be informed by the Court
to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the
owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take
possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of
the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period
of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle
before the Court. In any case, before handing over
possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the
said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama
should be prepared."
15. The position which thus emerges is that, the petitioners
are the registered owners of the subject vehicles, prima facie the
petitioners seem to have parted with valuable consideration and
they did not seem to have the inkling about the instruction to
their transferor not to transfer the subject cars. Thus, this
Court is inclined to allow the applications for the return of the
vehicles subject to further orders that may be passed by the
Designated Court under the provisions of MPID Act, 1999 and
BNSS, 2023.
-WP2966-2025+.DOC
16. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petitions stand allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) The trial Court is requested to pass an appropriate order
for release of the vehicles in favour of the respective
petitioners upon furnishing appropriate undertaking on
an affidavit and Indemnity Bond to the satisfaction of the
trial Court, within a period of one week from the date of
communication of this order.
(iv) The release of the vehicles shall be subject to further
orders that may be passed by the trial Court under MPID
Act, 1999 and BNSS, 2023.
(v) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(vi) In view of disposal of the petitions, IA(ST)/23871/2025
and IA(ST)/23372/2025 also stand disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
