1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 406 OF 2010 Mohd. Rafiyoddin Rehan Siddhique, Aged 40 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Shenshanagar, Choti Raj Galli, Beed, Taluka and District Beed Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Smt.U.T. Pathan, Advocate, holding for Mr. T.W. Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Writ Petition is challenging the order imposing condition of giving bank guarantee for the release of the petitioner’s Car, which was seized during the investigation of Crime No. 42 of 2009 of City Police Station, Beed. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was working as Chief Officer of a Co-operative Bank. It is further the case that the petitioner as well as the other office bearers and members of the Board of Directors syphoned of funds to the tune of Rs.6 Crore and 2 had committed offences punishable under Sections 407, 408, 409, 467, 468, 477 (A), 109, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution as against the petitioner, in particular, is that he himself took loan of Rs.50,00,000/- and his wife too took loan of similar amount from the bank and did not repay the same. When the petitioner was arrested in this case, police seized the Car in question. It is probably the case of the prosecution that utilizing ill-gotten money, the petitioner purchased this vehicle. Since his arrest, the vehicle is lying in the police station. The petitioner made an application for return of the vehicle under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., and as said above, the learned Sessions Judge, in revision, imposed condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.3,75,000/- for release of the Car. No reason is mentioned, as to why such onerous condition is put. I am, in fact, doubtful, as to whether, in a case like this, the property belonging to the accused, can be seized in this fashion. The petitioner thus is entitled to release of the vehicle on usual terms of supurdnama and bond. Thus, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The vehicle be returned to the petitioner on his executing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/-. Rule made absolute in above terms. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp406.10 3