1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1862 OF 2009 Smt.Panbai Jethalal Poladia @ Shah ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondent .... Mr.S.N.Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt.A.A.Mane  APP for State. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER,2009. P.C. : 1 The petitioner has challenged the condition imposed by the learned VIIIth Judicial Magistrate, Thane while allowing her the possession of a commercial flat bearing flat no.6 in Trimurti Co- operative Housing Society Ltd, situated at B Cabin, Dada Patil Wadi, Naupada, Thane to the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid premises. She had given the premises on lease to a tenant against whom offences has been registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 , 384 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of 2 deposits taken by the tenants illegally from the investors. During the course of investigation, the aforesaid flat which is owned by the petitioner, who is 85 years old was also seized. The petitioner, therefore, made an application which has been allowed by the trial court and directed the E.O.W., Thane City to hand over commercial flat to the petitioner. While doing so, the Court has, however, inter alia imposed the following condition: (1)That she shall deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the deposits of the premises from the tenants who is accused and (2)Secondly, she shall not transfer or sell the suit premises till the dismissal of the case. 2 Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition, that the petitioner should deposit the amount towards the deposits of the premises with the E.O.W. is ultimately unjustified because the petitioner 3 received the said amount from the tenant as a security deposit. Since the tenant has stopped making payment of rent due to registration of the offence against him, she may be allowed to utilize the amount which is meant for that very purpose. 3 The learned APP submitted that the said amount is a rented amount and the Court was justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the amount with the E.O.W. It seems that there is substance in the contentions of the petitioner, the amount was received by the petitioner towards the security deposits of the premises. Even if the amount was paid by the tenant from the account which was allegedly seized in respect of the offence, the character of the payment was purely contractual and lease holder is not concerned in any way with the source rent. Since the tenant has stopped making payment of the rent and normally the landlord would recover rent from such a security deposit, there is no reason why the amount should have been directed to be paid to the E.O.W.. In my view, if the petitioner is directed to give security for the 4 said sum to the E.O.W., it shall suffice the end of justice. 4 As regards the second condition, it seems that it should be modified. If the petitioner is allowed to lease out the premises to a tenant or licensee, during the pendency of the trial, she shall, however, not sell the premises till the disposal of the case. The amount of deposits shall be refunded to the petitioner. 5 Order accordingly. (S.A.BOBDE, J.)