904-REVN-46-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 46 OF 2026 Rahul Arjun Mane …Applicant Vs The State Of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Prasad Kamthe a/w Mr. Vinayak Belgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Avinash Naik, APP for the State Mr. V. B. Gavade, HC, Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 4 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. : 1. The present Criminal Revision Application challenges an order of rejection of an application filed by the Applicant under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking custody of a gold chain seized in a crime. 2. The impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, on 5 March 2026, wherein it is noted that earlier an application of a similar nature preferred by the Applicant, numbered as Exhibit 164, was rejected by an order dated 17 November 2025. 1/3 Iresh 904-REVN-46-2026.doc 3. Admittedly, the Applicant is not the owner of the gold chain. The case narrated is that one Mr. Kulkarni had gifted the subject gold chain to one Mr. Jadhav, who is an accused (Accused No. 12) in the crime. The said Jadhav gave the gold chain to the Applicant, and the Applicant obtained a loan from a financial institution in the name of one Mr. Kamble. Subsequently, according to the Applicant, the loan with the financial institution was repaid and the gold chain was returned back to him. However, thereafter, the Applicant again obtained a loan by mortgaging the gold chain with the financial institution. Subsequently, in a crime registered with Vishrambag Police Station, the police intervened, and communication was issued to the bank/financial institution not to hand over the gold chain to any person as it is subject matter of a recorded crime. The case of the Applicant is that he is ready to repay the entire loan amount to the financial institution as soon as the gold chain is returned to him. 4. The learned APP as well as the learned counsel appearing for the financial institution oppose the application, submitting that it is not maintainable since the impugned order has been passed on a second application seeking identical relief. It is further submitted that even on merits, no case is made out. 2/3 Iresh 904-REVN-46-2026.doc 5. Having heard learned counsel for all sides, this Court is of the view that the application deserves to be rejected. The gold chain is with the bank/financial institution, and the police have communicated that the same should not be handed over to any person as it is involved in a crime. Moreover, an earlier application preferred on similar grounds was already rejected by the Sessions Court. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present Criminal Revision Application, and the same stands rejected. No order as to costs. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) 3/3 Iresh IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.09.09 18:25:48 +0530