1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1906 OF 2008 Mrs.Anita A. Shetty : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra : Respondent ... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.S.N.Raj for the petitioner. Ms M.H.Mhatre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, rejecting the application for release of property. In the course of offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, two mobile phones were seized by the police. Even though the police stated that the investigation is over, they have not returned the mobile phones and cash to the extent of Rs.7,09,390/-. Apparently, the Court has rejected the request of the accused. The reason given by the Court is that the property was seized by the police in relation to crime under PITA Act and, therefore, it would not be just to return the sized muddemal articles to the petitioner. The order 2 seems to suffer from non-application of mind in the circumstances of the case. There is no doubt that the property was seized in respect of an offence. What was necessary for the Court to do was to apply its mind to the continued need for retaining the property in the Court and the relevance of the property to the charge sought to be established. It would appear that some identified notes to the extent of Rs.6,000/- cannot be released since those notes are said to have been paid by the bogus customers used by the police. The other notes admittedly have no such significance and similarly, it is not shown what significance, if any, three mobile phones have to the offence. 2. In the circumstances, I am of view that the Petition of the petitioner should be allowed and is hereby allowed, except to the extent of the identified notes of the value of Rs.6,000/- which are said to have been given by the bogus customers to the accused, upon furnishing P.R. bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Order accordingly. 3. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. S.A. BOBDE, J.