/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.836 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.687 OF 2003 Shri Dilip Javerchand Gadiya ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents --- Shri A.B. Kadam for Applicant Shri S.S. Pednekar- APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. The grievance of the Applicant is that though an order was passed by this Court on 22.10.2007 directing the Trial Court to return the property of the Applicant on execution of an Indemnity Bond, the said order is not being complied by the Sessions Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he had executed the Indemnity Bond and tendered it to the Sessions Court. However, the Sessions Court did not pass any further order and the property was not returned to the Applicant. 3. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on instructions, submits that there is no objection if the property is returned to the Applicant. / 2 / 4. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the Sessions Court today is directed to accept the Indemnity Bond prepared by the Applicant. 5. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. V.M. KANADE J.