..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3002 OF 2008 Ramesh Lakhulal Chaurasia. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.G.Rajput, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 7th October, 2008. DATED : 7th October, 2008. DATED : 7th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking return of the property i.e. six computers which have been seized in C.R. No.I-17 of 2007 of Ulhasnagar police station. The applicant is the owner of the said property. 3. The applicant is accused No.1 in C.R. No.I-17 of 2007 of Ulhasnagar police station. The said case is under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 & 5 of the Prevention of ..(2).. Gambling Act. The applicant is the Managing Director of Gamking Pvt. Ltd. In the said case, six computers were seized as it was found that they were used for illegal gambling. According to the prosecution some games pertaining to gambling were played on the said computers. The data regarding the said games had been stored on the hard disks of the said computers. Hence, it is apprehended that if the computers are returned there is serious risk of the data on the hard disks being destroyed hence the muddemal property should not be returned to the applicant. Besides this there is also an apprehension that the applicant will use the same computers for gambling as has been done earlier. It cannot be said that the apprehension of the prosecution is unfounded. Hence, I am not inclined to return the property. Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)