SM 1 36.revn.105.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2011 Raj Kumari ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents ____________ Mr. B. B. Nangare i/b M/s. B. B. Nangare & Associates for Applicant. MR. D. N. Salvi for the Respondent No. 1­C.B.I. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri, APP for the Respondent­State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present Revision Application, the Applicant is challenging the order dated 16 th December, 2010, whereby the application of the present Petitioner for release of goods came to be rejected. 3. The F.I.R. has been registered against one Bhagwana Ram Meena ­Commissioner of Income Tax for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the said case, some property came to be seized from the locker of the Applicant, who happens to be the daughter of the Accused No. 1. She filed an application for return of property. The same is rejected and hence the present Revision Application. SM 2 36.revn.105.11 4. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent ­C.B.I. In the said reply, it has been stated that the C.B.I. has no objection for the release of seized cash and jewelery in favour of the Applicant after executing indemnity bond for the same amount. 5. In that view of the matter, (i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (ii) The application of the present Petitioner for release of the goods i.e. the cash and jewelery is allowed, subject to the applicant's furnishing indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/­ (Rupees Six Lakhs) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)