1 904.Cri.WP.1854-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1854 OF 2024 RATANLAL C BAFNA GO SEVA ANUSANDHAN KENDRA THR. ABHAYCHANDRASHEKHAR PASHUPATHINATHSING AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Bajaj Anil S. APP for Respondent No.1/State : Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti … CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 25th MARCH 2025 PER COURT : . Heard the learned Counsel Mr. A.S. Bajaj for Petitioners and learned APP Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti for Respondent No.1. 2. Respondent No.2 is served through RPAD, but none appears for him. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. A.S. Bajaj tenders on record a copy of judgment and order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Criminal Revision No.43/2024, thereby allowing the Revision and quashing the order dated 04.07.2024 passed in Criminal M.A. No.148/2024 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal. The present petition is emanating from interim order passed in the Revision Application which is now finally disposed of. 2025:BHC-AUG:8817 2 904.Cri.WP.1854-2024.doc 4. My attention is adverted to Clause 13 of the operative part of judgment and order dated 06.11.2024. Learned Counsel submits that although Criminal Revision is allowed, this Court has to consider the impugned order awarding cost of Rs.40,000/-. 5. I have gone through the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge below Exhibit-18 in Criminal Revision Application No.43/2024. Normally interim orders would merge in the final conclusion arrived at by the competent Court. But in the present matter on 29.10.2024, this Court passed ad- interim relief of staying the operation of order dated 23.10.2024 below Exhibit-18. In all probabilities, that impelled the learned Judge to pass direction in Clause 13 in the final judgment dated 06.11.2024. 6. It reveals from record that after apprehending the vehicle and the camels on 05.06.2024, those were immediately entrusted to the present Petitioners. Respondent No.2 sought custody of the camels under the pretext that he was the owner. His Criminal M.A. No.148/2024 was allowed vide order dated 04.07.2024. Being aggrieved Criminal Revision Application No.43/2024 was filed by present Petitioners, which is allowed by order dated 06.11.2024. Respondent No.2 never received the custody of the camels. In the interregnum, Petitioner No.2 appeared before the Sessions Court. The custody of the camels is entrusted to the present Petitioner No.2 after pronouncement of judgment and order dated 06.11.2024. Presently 3 904.Cri.WP.1854-2024.doc the animals are with Petitioner No.2. 7. I have gone through the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, imposing cost of Rs.40,000/- to be paid by present Petitioners to the Respondent No.2. I find that impugned order is absurd and it is incomprehensible as to why cost is imposed when the application Exhibit-18 before the Revisional Court was for seeking permission to advance the submission. Under peculiar circumstances, I quash and set aside order dated 23.10.2024 below Exhibit-18. 8. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. 9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. SHAILESH P. BRAHME JUDGE NAJEEB..