Dismissed

Subhash Sudhakar Ranbhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2014APPW/223/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal application and interconnected writ petitions concerning interim custody of a vehicle seized during a criminal trial. The court held that since the trial proceedings had concluded, the writ petition was subsumed, and custody must be determined by the Magistrate under Section 452 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application and the writ petitions are dismissed. The Magistrate is directed to pass final orders regarding the vehicle within three months after recording evidence.

Subhash Sudhakar Ranbhare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

appw-223-10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

rpa

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1932 OF 2005

¶6

Subhash S. Ranbhare .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3082 OF 2005

¶8

Arif Gafur Sayyad .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1932 OF 2005

¶10

Subhash Sudhakar Ranbhare .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶11

Mr.S.V. Sadavarth, Advocate for the Applicant in APPW No.223 of 2010, Petitioner in W.P/1932 of 2005 and Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.3082 of 2005.

¶12

Mr.A.M. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner in W.P. No.3082 of 2005, for Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.1932 of 2005. Ms.Anamika Malhotra, A.P.P. for Respondent – State.

¶13

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶14

DATED : NOVEMBER 10, 2014.

1/7

appw-223-10

P.C. :

The criminal application no.223 of 2010 and these two writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.

¶19

2 The facts giving rise to them, in brief, may be stated as

¶20

under:-

¶21

On a report lodged by one Altaf, a case in respect of offences punishable under Section 406 IPC, 420 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC was registered by Khadak Police Station vide C.R.No.22 of 2005. In the course of investigation, a Toyota Corsa motor car bearing registration No.MH 04-AS-9480 came to be seized, from the possession of Subhash Ranbhare (Petitioner in W.P.No.1932). One Arif Gafur Sayyad (petitioner in W.P. No.3083 of 2005) claimed to be having a right to possess the said vehicle.

¶22

3 Subhash Ranbhare and Arif Gafur Sayyad both made applications for interim custody of the said vehicle during the pendency of the trial. The learned Magistrate, by her order dated 22^nd March, 2005, rejected the applications made by both of them. The Magistrate observed that the car had passed through the hands of a

¶23

2/7

¶24

appw-223-10

¶25

number of persons, and it was not advisable to hand over the interim custody either to Subhash Ranbhare (petitioner in W.P.No.1932 of 2005), or to Arif Sayyad (Petitioner in W.P.No. 3082 of 2005). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, Subhash Ranbhare and Arif Sayyad both approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petitions invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶26

4 The petition filed by Subhash Ranbhare (W.P.No.1932 of 2005) was admitted by an order dated 1^st August, 2006 and Rule was issued. By the same order, interim custody of the said vehicle was directed to be handed over to the petitioner i.e. Subhash Ranbhare on his furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand) and on his undertaking to keep it alive till the disposal of the writ petition and/or till the proceedings pending before the trial Court. The writ petition no.3082 of 2005 filed by Arif Gafur Sayyed praying for the interim custody of the said vehicle, has also been admitted.

¶27

5 By the application No.233 of 2010, the applicant who is the petitioner in W.P.No.1932 of 2005, prays that he be relieved of the Bank guarantee and the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- deposited by him in the Bank, be directed to be released in his favour.

¶28

3/7

¶29

appw-223-10

¶30

6 I find that the application no.223 of 2010 is misconceived. It is because the interim order dated 1st August, 2006 passed by the Court clearly indicates that the applicant/petitioner was under an obligation to keep the Bank Guarantee alive 'only till the disposal of the writ petition and/or the proceedings pending before the trial Court, whichever is earlier'. I am informed that the proceedings before the Magistrate are already over. The trial has culminated in conviction of one of the accused. As such, there was no necessity of making any separate application for enabling the applicant to be relieved of the bank guarantee.

¶31

7 The interim order dated 1^st August, 2006 also stipulates that the interim custody of the vehicle was being granted to the applicant/petitioner Subhash Ranbhare, 'subject to the final orders that would be passed either in the petition or in the proceedings before the trial Court'.

¶32

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner Subhash Ranbhare (Writ Petition No.1932 of 2005) submits that he was not aware of the fact that the trial proceedings have been disposed of by the learned Magistrate, and therefore, has preferred the criminal application no.223 of 2010. In view of what has been observed above, he seeks

¶33

4/7

¶34

appw-223-10

¶35

permission to withdraw the criminal application no.223 of 2010. The same is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed, as such.

¶36

9 As the proceedings before the Magistrate have already been disposed of, it would be necessary that a decision regarding custody of the vehicle in question is left to the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A certified copy of the Judgment and order passed by the leaned Magistrate is tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner – Arif Sayyad (W.P.No.3082 of 2005). It appears that no final order regarding disposal of the motor vehicle in question have been passed by the learned Magistrate. It is clear from the interim order passed by this Court that the same was being passed subject to the final orders that would be passed either in the writ petition no.1932 of 2005 or in the proceedings before the trial Court. As such, nothing survives either in the Writ Petition No.1932 of 2005 or in the Writ Petition No.3082 of 2005. Both the petitions are required to be disposed of by giving directions to the Magistrate to pass an order with respect to the said vehicle, as contemplated under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶37

10 The learned counsel for the petitioner Arif Sayyad, however, submits that the petitioner Subhash Ranbhare may not be

¶38

5/7

¶39

appw-223-10

¶40

relieved of from the Bank guarantee furnished by him, at this stage. He points out that Subahs Ranbhare has enjoyed the interim custody of the said vehicle for about nine years, and now the value of the vehicle has considerably reduced. I am afraid, nothing can be done in that regard in the present proceedings, inasmuch as the petitions are required to be disposed of by leaving it the Magistrate to pass a final order regarding the disposal of the vehicle. Not only that it would be proper in itself, but it would also be in conformity with the interim order passed by this Court while issuing Rule in the writ petition no.1932 of 2005.

¶41

11 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1932 of 2005 seeks permission to withdraw the petition, and states that he would hand over the custody of the vehicle to the police. Needless to say, that he shall be at liberty to do so.

¶42

12 The writ petition no.1932 of 2005 is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed, as such.

¶43

13 So far as the writ petition No.3082 of 2005 is concerned, since now the question of custody of the vehicle in question would be required to be determined by the learned Magistrate in accordance

¶44

6/7

¶45

appw-223-10

¶46

with the provisions of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and since the challenge in the present petition is only in respect of the interim order passed by the Magistrate during the pendency of the trial proceedings (which have now been terminated), the petition does not survive and stands dismissed.

¶47

14 However, the learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders with respect to the disposal of the said vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or Section 457 thereof, as may be applicable. Such orders may be passed after holding an inquiry into the matter and after recording evidence, as may be thought fit by the Magistrate.

¶48

15 The learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the receipt of the order by him, but only after giving an opportunity to all concerned, of being heard in the matter.

¶49

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶50

7/7

Subhash Sudhakar Ranbhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Sudhakar Ranbhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irshadahman Abalal Nadaf Vs Naznin Himmat Desai and Anr.

Dipak Bharamu Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irshadahman Abalal Nadaf Vs Naznin Himmat Desai and Anr.

Subhash Sudhakar Ranbhare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Bhairu Waskar Vs the State of Maharastra

Dipan Jugalkishore Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.