IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2342 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2342 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2342 OF 2007 Mr. Pramod Biharilal Kejriwal.... Petitioner versus Mr. Sandeep Sampathraj Kothari & ...... Respondent. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner. Shri S.R.Shinde APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The order passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate dated 8-8-2006 is challenged by filing this petition. The respondent no.1 lodged a report with the police and thereafter filed a complaint. The Magistrate directed an investigation to be caused under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In the said investigation, parts of the vehicle came to be attached. The person in possession of the garage is respondent no.1 in whose favour there is an order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court whereby the possession of the respondent no.1 of the garage is protected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of injunction is in regard to the ground floor portion of the garage and not in relation to the upper floor. Be it as it may, the grievance made by respondent no.1 is that parts of the vehicle were removed from the garage by the present petitioner and thereby he has committed offences punishable under section 392, 452, 506(6), 485, 506 read with 34 of IPC along with other two persons. In this fact situation, the respondent no.1 so also the present petitioner moved an application claiming possession of the attached parts of the vehicle. The trial court has directed the custody of the attached goods in favour of the respondent no.1. The present petitioner tried to make out a categorical case before the trial court that the accused no.1 has hypothecated the parts of the vehicle with the present petitioner to secure some money and hence unless and until the amount is paid by respondent no.1 to the petitioner, the petitioner has a right to retain the goods which are the parts of the vehicle. The trial court found that in the absence of a deed of hypothecation being placed on record, it is not possible to accept the submission made on behalf of the present petitioner and thus directed the custody of the goods/parts to be handed over to the accused no.1, subject to execution of a bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. 2. Perused the order. The same does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence petition is summarily rejected. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court had erred in directing, furnishing of a bond of Rs.15,000/- as according to him the value of the goods in question is about Rs.5 lakhs. This aspect cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, for the first time in writ petition. No such objection appears to have been raised in relation to the valuation before the trial court. Hence this contention do not need consideration. .....