Dismissed¶35

Vilas Vasant Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim custody of seized vehicle; cattle transportation from Taloda to Shahada; Supurtnama release on condition; alleged violation of condition; ownership not legally transferred; no perversity; Vilas Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Kishore C. Sant, J.; Criminal Writ Petition No. 110 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:14753-DB; JMFC Shahada order dated 05-09-2024; Additional Sessions Judge Shahada, Cri. Revision Application No. 17/2024, order dated 21-10-2024; vehicle MH-18-BG-6841; precedents: Criminal Writ Petition No.1233/2019 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 475/2019 (Nagpur Bench).

What did the court decide?

None; the learned trial court was requested to expedite the trial. ¶35

Vilas Vasant Patil vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:14753-DB

¶2

(1)

¶3

908criwp110.25

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

908 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2025

VILAS VASANT PATIL

….Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶10

…..Respondent

¶11

Mr. S. S. Ghodke, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Shrikant Mundhe, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the respondents/State

¶12

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2025

¶13

P. C.

¶14

Heard the learned advocates for the parties.

¶15

The matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.

¶16

A challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21-10-2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Cri. Revision Application No. 17/2024. Revision was

¶17

filed against the order dated 05-09-2024 passed by the learned

¶18

JMFC, Shahada refusing to hand over interim custody of the

¶19

1 of 4

¶20

(2) 908criwp110.25

¶21

vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

That the vehicle of the petitioner is found carrying cattle from Taloda to Shahada. The police accosted the vehicle and taken the same in the custody by registering an offence.

¶23

The petitioner happens only to be owner of the vehicle. He filed an application for release of vehicle bearing No. MH-18-BG-6841. The learned trial Judge rejected the application observing that same vehicle was released earlier on Supurtnama on certain condition. One of the conditions was that said vehicle shall not be used for similar activities in future. It is observed that in spite of such condition, the vehicle is again used for same purpose and rejected the application.

¶24

The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the vehicle in question is only source of livelihood of the petitioner. When on earlier occasion the vehicle was found used for carrying the cattle he was not the owner. It is earlier

¶25

2 of 4

¶26

(3) 908criwp110.25

¶27

owner of the vehicle who had given undertaking. When the petitioner purchased the vehicle he was not made aware of any such condition. This is the only incident after he became the owner of the vehicle. He thus submits that violation of the condition is not attributed to him. It is in nobodies interest to keep the vehicle idle. He thus, prays for release of the vehicle.

¶28

The learned APP points out the observations of the learned Sessions Judge where the learned Sessions Judge specifically considered that earlier the vehicle was released on Supurdnama on condition. Violation of condition is taken as ground to refuse custody of the vehicle. He submits that both the courts have thus rightly observed that if the vehicle is released, again there is possibility of repeated use of the vehicle for the same purpose.

¶29

Mr. Mundhe, learned advocate also vehemently opposes the petition. He produced on record copy of order in Criminal Writ Petition No.1233/2019. In similar set of facts this

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

(4) 908criwp110.25

¶32

court had refused to grant custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein. In similar facts the Nagpur bench also passed the order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 475/2019 and dismissed the petition.

¶33

This court, on hearing the parties and on going through the order, does not find any perversity in the impugned order. The learned trial court has clearly observed that though the ground is taken that the petitioner became owner of the vehicle, however, there is nothing on record to show that the vehicle is legally transferred in the name of the petitioner. The learned trial court has rightly passed the order.

¶34

Considering all above, this court finds that no case is

¶35

made out to allow the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶36

The learned trial court is requested to expedite the trial.

¶37

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

¶38

VishalK/908criwp110.25

¶39

4 of 4

Vilas Vasant Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Vasant Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saiprasad Suryakantrao Jatalwar Vs Sreejaya Ashokrao Chavan

Trimbak Alias Suresh Shankarrao Jedhe Died Thr Lrs Pramila Suresh Jedhe and Others Vs Vivek Vasantrao Jedhe and Others

Ganesh Sakharam Khandare and Others Vs Aruna Gangaram Rodge

Mamta W/O Nahushraj Sonawane Vs Nahushraj Ashokrao Sonawane

Rangnath S/O Sanduba Dhole Vs the Additional Div. Commissioner Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Others

Sadhu Kondiba Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Others