Allowed¶22

Ganesh Gorkshanath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Dec 2025WP/1498/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 457 CrPC interim custody of vehicle; condition no. 2 in release order (Tahsildar intimation / royalty penalty) held uncalled for and unsustainable; Dumper MH 43-Y-4290; M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar; Regular Criminal Case No. 1810/2022; order dated 09.05.2023 quashed to the extent of condition no. 2; Criminal Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2025, Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Abhay J. Mantri, J.; relies on Pravin Solanke (Cri.W.P. 35/2021), Moula Baluragi (Cri.W.P. 3397/2021), Balasaheb Sapkal (Cri.W.P. 80/2025).

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’; condition no. 2 imposed by the learned Magistrate quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs. ¶22

Ganesh Gorkshanath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:33652

¶2

1 902.odt1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2025

¶5

Ganesh Gorakshanath Jadhav, age. 35 years, Occu. Agriculture & Business, R/o: Shingave, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar (Ahilayanagar) ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. ...Respondent

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Apparao Bhimrao Kharosekar APP for Respondent : Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil

¶9

… CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 04^th DECEMBER, 2025

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

¶12

finally by the consent of the learned advocates for the parties at the admission stage.

¶13

Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 09.05.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, (for short the ‘ learned Magistrate’ ) in Regular Criminal Case No. 1810/2022, to the extent of condition no.2 imposed by the learned Magistrate and directed to release the vehicle to him.

¶14

2 902.odt1

¶15

Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petition is covered by the Judgment and orders passed by this Court in Pravin S/o. Eknath Solanke V. State of Maharashtra , in Criminal Writ Petition No. 35/2021 dated 22.01.2021, Moula S/o. Rajebhai Baluragi V. State of Maharashtra , in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3397/2021 dated 07.03.2022, and Balasaheb S/o. Raosaheb Sapkal V. The State of Maharashtra , in Criminal Writ Petition No. 80/2025 dated 15.04.2025, and, therefore, he urged that in view of the mandate in the above judgment and orders, the petition be allowed.

¶16

In response, learned APP does not dispute the mandate laid down in the above-cited judgments and, therefore, submitted to the order of the Court.

¶17

I have perused the impugned order and record, as well as the judgments and orders relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It appears that learned Magistrate, vide order dated 09.05.2023, passed an order releasing the vehicle, i.e., Dumper bearing no. MH 43-Y-4290 on executing the indemnity bond and supurtnama of the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs, and also imposed condition no. 2 which reads thus :

¶18

“२. सहाययकपोल् ि�सनि�री्ቌ क, एमआयडीसीपोलि�सठाण, अहमद�गरयां�ा नि�द�शि�तकरण्यातयेते की, स्ततु करणाती�वाह� ् मांक, वाह�मा�काचे �ाव वप्ቈ ातसेच थमखबरीअहवा�ाची ततहसी�दार, अहमद�गरया�ामहारा महस�अधू ि0नि�यमाचे क�म४८ माणे योग्यतयाकाय् 5वाहीसाठीततकाळदयाव् ेत.

¶19

3 902.odt1

¶20

त्या�ंतरतहसी�दारत्यां�ीमहारा्ቖ्र महसू�अधि0नि�यमा�ुसाररॉयल्टीचेदंडात्मक रकमेबाबतचे आदे� पारिरत केल्यास ती र्ሪम �ास�ाकडे अ्ቌ5दारा�े्ቌ मा केल्या�ंतरचसदरचेवाह�उपरो्ሹ आदे�ा्ቚमाणेअ्ቌ5दाराच्याताब्यातदयावे.” 6. Considering the mandate in judgment and orders passed by

¶21

this Court in the above-relied judgments, it appears that the condition no. 2 imposed by the learned Magistrate is uncalled for, and the same cannot be legally put while considering the application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, in my view, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.

¶22

As a result, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, and thereby, condition no. 2 imposed by the learned Magistrate is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

¶23

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶24

SPC

Ganesh Gorkshanath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Gorkshanath Jadhav 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejaswee Sumeet Bhosle @ Tejaswee Balwant Jadhav vs Sumeet Mohanrao Bhosale

Ravindra Parmeshwar Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vijaya Vishram Tuljapur Kar Vs Vitthal Ukhardu Gunjal

Samadhan Ananda Lokhande Vs Priyanka Samadhan Lokhande and Another

Hiralal Laxminarayan Jaiswal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashok Madhav Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others