1 902.odt1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2025 Ganesh Gorakshanath Jadhav, age. 35 years, Occu. Agriculture & Business, R/o: Shingave, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar (Ahilayanagar) ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. ...Respondent ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Apparao Bhimrao Kharosekar APP for Respondent : Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil … CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 04th DECEMBER, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the learned advocates for the parties at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 09.05.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, (for short the ‘learned Magistrate’) in Regular Criminal Case No. 1810/2022, to the extent of condition no.2 imposed by the learned Magistrate and directed to release the vehicle to him. 2025:BHC-AUG:33652 2 902.odt1 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petition is covered by the Judgment and orders passed by this Court in Pravin S/o. Eknath Solanke V. State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 35/2021 dated 22.01.2021, Moula S/o. Rajebhai Baluragi V. State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3397/2021 dated 07.03.2022, and Balasaheb S/o. Raosaheb Sapkal V. The State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 80/2025 dated 15.04.2025, and, therefore, he urged that in view of the mandate in the above judgment and orders, the petition be allowed. 4. In response, learned APP does not dispute the mandate laid down in the above-cited judgments and, therefore, submitted to the order of the Court. 5. I have perused the impugned order and record, as well as the judgments and orders relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It appears that learned Magistrate, vide order dated 09.05.2023, passed an order releasing the vehicle, i.e., Dumper bearing no. MH 43-Y-4290 on executing the indemnity bond and supurtnama of the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs, and also imposed condition no. 2 which reads thus : “२. सहाय्यक पोलिस नि री्ቌक , एम आय डी सी पोलिस ठाणे , अहमद गर यां ा नि दशित करण्यात येते की , ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚकरणाती वाह ्ቅमांक , वाह माकाचे ाव व प्ቈा तसेच ्ቚथम खबरी अहवााची ्ቚत तहसीदार , अहमद गर या ा महारा्ቖ्र महसू अधि0नि यमाचे कम ४८ ्ቚमाणे योग्य त्या काय5वाहीसाठी तत्काळ दयावेत . 3 902.odt1 त्या ंतर तहसीदार त्यां ी महारा्ቖ्र महसू अधि0नि यमा ुसार रॉयल्टीचे दंडात्मक रकमेबाबतचे आदे पारिरत के ल्यास ती र्ሪम ास ाकडे अ्ቌ5दारा े ्ቌमा के ल्या ंतरच सदरचे वाह उपरो्ሹ आदेा्ቚमाणे अ्ቌ5दाराच्या ताब्यात दयावे.” 6. Considering the mandate in judgment and orders passed by this Court in the above-relied judgments, it appears that the condition no. 2 imposed by the learned Magistrate is uncalled for, and the same cannot be legally put while considering the application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, in my view, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. 7. As a result, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, and thereby, condition no. 2 imposed by the learned Magistrate is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SPC