1 (13) wp 661.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.661/2026 (Mukesh V State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Yatharth Badwaik, Advocate h/f Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Joshi, APP for respondent. CORAM : Mehroz K. Pathan, J. DATE : 01-10-2026. The present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur, in Criminal M.A. No. 5493/2024, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking release of the seized vehicle on supratnama. The Petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The vehicle came to be seized in connection with Crime No. 0031/2023 registered with the Cyber Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act. The seized vehicle belongs to the Petitioner and has remained in the custody of the Cyber Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur, since the date of its seizure i.e on 01-02-2025. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is not an accused in the aforesaid crime and that the seized vehicle is no longer required for the purpose of further investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & another v. State of 2026:BHC-NAG:13173 2 (13) wp 661.26.odt Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, was pleased to observe as under:— “14. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only do they occupy substantial space in the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road.” 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the vehicle, which is presently lying at the Cyber Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur, and which is owned by the Petitioner, may kindly be directed to be released in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and further undertakes to produce the said vehicle before the learned Trial Court as and when so directed. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that both the learned lower Courts below have committed an error in not allowing the application. The applicant has sought only an interim custody during the pendency of the trial. The trial is yet to be concluded and there is every likelihood that the vehicle may get damage and will not be in a condition to run on the road. The application is therefore be allowed by quashing and setting aside both the orders of the learned lower Courts below. 3 (13) wp 661.26.odt 5. As against this, Mrs. Joshi, learned APP, strongly opposes the present application on the ground that the aforesaid vehicle, i.e. Safari bearing Registration No. UP-16/DU-7724, has been seized in connection with Crime No.0031/2023, registered for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. Learned APP submits that, if the Petitioner is permitted to take custody of the said vehicle, there is every possibility that the Petitioner may abscond and may not produce the vehicle before the learned Trial Court as and when the same is required, particularly at the time of passing of the final order in the trial. Learned APP, therefore, submits that the application for release of the vehicle was rightly rejected by both the learned Courts below. It is further submitted that no case is made out for interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The application is devoid of substance and merits and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 6. I have gone through the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur, in Criminal M.A. No. 5492/2024, as well as the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-17, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision No. 186/2025. The learned Courts below have taken into consideration the gravity of the alleged offence; however, they have failed to take into consideration the principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an application seeking release of the seized vehicle on supratnama. 7. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam, reported in (2025) 1 S.C.R. 281 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to 4 (13) wp 661.26.odt reiterate the principles governing the release of seized vehicles and to observe as under:— "33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. (i) Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. (ii) Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. (iii) Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. (iv) Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024 Page 28 of 31 the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused. 34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.” 5 (13) wp 661.26.odt 8. The third and fourth criteria laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam (supra) clearly indicate that, where the applicant/owner of the vehicle is not an accused in the concerned crime, the seized vehicle may be released in favour of the applicant/owner, subject to the execution of an appropriate indemnity bond and such other conditions as may be imposed by the Court. In the present case, the Petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and is not an accused in the aforesaid crime. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the vehicle can be released in favour of the Petitioner. 9. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra), as well as in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam (supra), I am inclined to pass the following order:— ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur, in Criminal M.A. No. 5492/2024, and the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-17, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision No. 186/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner executing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). 6 (13) wp 661.26.odt (iv) The Petitioner shall also deposit a cash security of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) before the learned Trial Court. (v) Upon furnishing the aforesaid indemnity bond and depositing the cash security before the learned Trial Court, the concerned Police Station shall release the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, being the owner thereof. (vi) The Police Station shall prepare a Panchanama and take photographs of released vehicle. (vii) The Petitioner shall produce the said vehicle before the learned Trial Court as and when directed. (viii)The petitioner shall furnish copies of his Aadhaar Cared and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer along with his residential address and the names, addresses and mobile numbers of two close relatives. (ix) The Petitioner shall not create any third-party interest in respect of the said vehicle and shall not sell, transfer, alienate or otherwise part with the ownership or possession thereof in favour of any third person until conclusion of the trial. (Mehroz K. Pathan, J.) Deshmukh Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 18:32:54