Allowed

Kailash @ Gul Achra v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Aug 2022REVN/256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Bombay allowed the revision application and set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting an application for the return of seized gold ornaments. The court directed the ornaments be returned to the applicant (father of the deceased) upon execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; gold ornaments to be returned to applicant upon executing usual Supratnama Bond.

Kailash @ Gul Achra Vs State of Maharashtra — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

2-REVN-256-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 256 OF 2022

¶4

Kailash @ Gul Achra...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Bharat Bhatia, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 1st AUGUST, 2022

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1.The First Information Report bearing No.301 of 2020 was
registered with Hill Line Police Station, District Thane on
19.11.2020 for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for
short ‘IPC’) at the instance of Assistance Police Inspector
Shri. Dhananjay Ganage attached to Hill Line Police Station.
Missing Complaint No.47 of 2020 was registered at the instance of
applicant alleging that his son Pavan Kailash Achra was missing
from 16.11.2020. During investigation of missing complaint,
involvement of Deepak Chetan Goklani was revealed. During
interrogation accused Goklani had disclosed that the missing
person had parted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to him. Pavan was
demanding the said amount. The accused Goklani and another

¶10

Sajakali Jamadar

¶11

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2023.05.23 11:57:48 +0530

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

2-REVN-256-2022.doc

¶14

accused killed Pavan by strangulation. Investigation revealed that,
Pavan had handed over Gold ornaments to the accused No.1 which
were misappropriated by him. FIR was registered. The accused
had attempted to destroy evidence. Several persons were arrested.
Gold ornaments were recovered. Charge-sheet was filed for
offences under Sections 302, 201, 406 & 411 of IPC.

¶15

2.The applicant preferred application under Section 457 of
Cr.P.C. for return of the gold ornaments before Sessions Court. The
investigating officer filed a report dated 02.08.2021 giving no
objection for returning gold ornaments to the applicant. The
accused No.1 filed the say stating that as per column No.4 of the
affidavit consisting of gold ornaments valued Rs.15,85,220/-, he
has no knowledge about the ownership of gold ornaments and he
has no say about it and opted to leave at discretion of the Court
and to pass appropriate orders. The accused No.1 filed another say
dated 01.09.2021 stated that, he has no connection with the gold
ornaments. Accused No.4 filed say dated 23.08.2021 and stated
that it is difficult for him to make any comment on the contents
and the prayers in the application and the Court may pass
appropriate orders. Accused No.5 filed the say dated 12.08.2021
denying any link with the recovered Muddemal Articles.

2 of 4

Sajakali Jamadar

2-REVN-256-2022.doc

3.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, vide order dated
27.09.2021 rejected the said application.

¶20

4.Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, in the
report dated 02.08.2021 filed by Senior Inspector of Police, Hill
Line Police Station it is stated that, the applicant is father of
deceased. They don’t have objection for handing over the articles
mentioned in the application to the applicant. The accused No.1 by
filing say stated that, he has no knowledge about the gold
ornaments and has no right over the same. The accused Nos.4 & 5
from whom the gold was recovered has filed their say denying the
ownership of ornaments. None of the accused claimed gold
ornaments and averred that they have no connection with the
ornaments. The applicant is the owner of the gold ornaments.
The bills of purchase of ornaments are annexed to the application.

¶21

5.Learned A.P.P. has pointed out the say filed by learned A.P.P.
before the trial Court and the report submitted by the Police. He
supported order passed by trial Court.

¶22

6.The applicant is the father of deceased. The subject
ornaments were recovered during the course of investigation. It is
the case of prosecution that the deceased had entrusted the
ornaments to accused. The Police report indicate that the

3 of 4

Sajakali Jamadar

2-REVN-256-2022.doc

ornaments can be handed over to the applicant. The accused had
not objected for handing over the ornaments to the applicant.
Considering these circumstances, the prayers for return of the
articles by way of interim custody can be granted. Hence, I pass
the following order.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

 i)Criminal Revision Application No.256 of 2022 is
allowed.

¶29

ii)Impugned order vide order dated 27th September, 2021
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case
No.167 of 2021 rejecting application for return of articles is
set aside.

¶30

iii) The article Gold ornaments, which are subject matter
of application Exhibit-8 preferred by applicant be returned to
the applicant on executing usual Supratnama Bond.

¶31

iv)The applicant shall not alienate, transfer, change form
of articles and shall produce the same as and when required
by the trial Court.

¶32

v) Application is disposed of.

¶33

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶34

4 of 4

¶35

Sajakali Jamadar

Kailash @ Gul Achra v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash @ Gul Achra v. State of Maharashtra

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

Deepak Mangaldas Anjane Vs State of Maharashtra

M/S Rml Sons and Anr. Vs M/S Shree Balaji Syncot Private and Ors. Limited and Anr.

Kuldeep Singh S/O Jaswant Sinh Hira Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Okoye Cyprain Chinnasa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imperial Techsol Priavate Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Federal Bank Ltd. through Shalini Nimish Somaiya and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.