Devendra Jagdish Khattar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Devendra Jagdish Khattar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition partly allowed: the bank-guarantee condition of Rs. 20,00,000/- for five (05) years (clause No. 2 to that extent) quashed and set aside; bank-guarantee conditions in clauses Nos. 2, 3 and 4 rendered ineffective and deleted; rest of the conditions in clause No. 2 and the rest of the order confirmed; Rule made partly absolute; no order as to costs; Trial Court to be informed accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether condition Nos. 2 and 3 imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- for five (05) years for release of the seized vehicle, are unreasonable and harsh and liable to be set aside.

Court's answer

The imposition of condition Nos. 2 and 3 directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- for a period of five (05) years is unreasonable and harsh, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The imposition of the condition in clause No. 2, to the extent of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- for five (05) years, is quashed and set aside; however, the rest of the conditions in clause No. 2 remain intact.

Key takeaways

Consequently, the conditions in clauses Nos. 2, 3 and 4, to the extent of furnishing a bank guarantee, are ineffective and deleted accordingly, and the rest of the order stands confirmed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Abhay J. Mantri, J., decided 18 December 2025) — Devendra Jagdish Khattar v. The State of Maharashtra (Pishore Police Station, Tq. Kanna, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar). The petitioner challenged condition Nos. 2 and 3 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by order dated 18 November 2025 passed below Exhibit 1, whereby he was required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- for five (05) years for release of his vehicle (Mahindra Thar, Regn. No. MH01-EB-0050), seized by the Investigating Officer in connection with an FIR arising out of money transactions between the parties. Holding the condition 'unreasonable and harsh', the Court quashed and set aside the bank-guarantee condition in clause No. 2 and declared the bank-guarantee conditions in clauses Nos. 2, 3 and 4 ineffective and deleted, while keeping the rest of the conditions in clause No. 2 and the rest of the order intact. Rule made partly absolute; no order as to costs; the Trial Court to be informed accordingly.

957.WP.1684.2025.odt

2025:BHC-AUG:36161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1684 OF 2025

Devendra Jagdish Khattar

Age : 36 years, Occu : Business, R/o. Balaji Bhavan, Talreja Nagar, Post Office Road, Jalna ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Pishore Police Station, Tq. Kanna, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...RESPONDENT

Mr. Hon Ashwin Vinayak, Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant/Appellant. Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for Respondent – State.

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2025

JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

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

The petitioner, being dissatisfied with condition Nos. 2 and 3 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by order dated 18^th November 2025, passed below Exhibit 1, whereby a condition was imposed to furnish the bank guarantee of 20,00,000/- for release of₹ the vehicle in question, has approached this Court.

Page1 of 3

Shrikant Malani

957.WP.1684.2025.odt

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent – State and gone through the impugned order,

at the outset, it appears from the FIR that, due to money transactions between the two parties, the Investigating Officer seized the vehicle (Mahindra Thar) bearing registration No. MH01-EB-0050. According to the petitioner, the imposition of a condition to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 20,00,000/- for a period of five (05) years is an unreasonable₹ and harsh condition. Therefore, he urged the relaxation of the said condition.

On the other hand, learned APP opposed the relaxation of the said conditions; however, I do not find any substance in his contention. Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the imposition of condition Nos. 2 and 3 directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹20,00,000/- for a period of five (05) years is unreasonable and harsh. Therefore, in my view, the same is liable to be set aside.

As a result, the petition is partly allowed. Imposition of Condition as per clause No.2, to the extent of furnishing of a bank guarantee of 20,00,000/- for a period of five (05) years, is hereby quashed and set₹ aside. However, it is made clear that the rest of the conditions in clause No.2 shall remain intact.

Page2 of 3

Shrikant Malani

957.WP.1684.2025.odt

Consequently, the conditions in clauses No. 2, 3, and 4, to the

extent of furnishing a bank guarantee, are also ineffective and deleted accordingly. The rest of the order shall stand confirmed.

In view of the above, the Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

The learned Trial Court shall be informed accordingly.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Page3 of 3

Shrikant Malani