45-REVN-445-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION. NO. 445 OF 2026 Shantanu Dnyaneshwar Nisal ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr.Mihir Kasliwal (Through VC) a/w Mr.Mahesh Pawar, for the Applicant. Ms.R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Revision Application is to the impugned order dated 29th July 2026 passed below Exhibit-1 in Criminal M.A. No.38 of 2026, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, whereby the Application filed by the Applicant for release of the property i.e. Toyota Fortuner car bearing No.MH-15-HZ-0072 is rejected. 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 5th October 2025 the co-accused tried to kill the injured on the ground of the financial dispute. It is alleged that the car of present Applicant was used by co-accused to flee away from the incident spot. At the time of incident, the said car was without number plate and it was used for extortion in other matters and provisions of the NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.17 10:54:25 +0530 45-REVN-445-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA Act’ for short) is applied in the present case. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant has not been arraigned as an accused in the present crime. The vehicle seized from the house of the Applicant. In the FIR there is no reference of the car. The Applicant is ready to produce the said car before the learned Sessions Judge as and when required. The Applicant needs the car for personal use and for family purpose. He is owner of the car and requested to allow the Application. 4. It is contention of learned APP that the said car was used in the present crime it was without number place. It was used in other offences also. It is part of the evidence. If the said car is released, the Applicant may dispose it off. The learned Judge has passed well reasoned order and no interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application. 5. I have heard both learned counsel. 6. The Applicant is not accused in the present crime. It is alleged that the said car was used in the present crime and was used in other crimes also. The Applicant is owner of the said car. It is alleged that it was used by Accused No.18 in the present crime. The Applicant needs the car for personal use and for family purpose. The car is stationed in Police station, if 45-REVN-445-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble it is not used it will get damaged. If the indemnity bond taken by the applicant to produce the said car as and when required before learned Sessions Judge would suffice and I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29th July 2026 passed by learned Seesions Judge, Nashik is quashed and set aside (iii) The vehicle Toyota Fortuner car bearing No.MH-15- HZ-0072, Variant 2.8L 2WD 6MT, be returned to the Applicant with furnishing Indemnity Bond. (iv) All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)