( 1 ) 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 REVISION APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2008 Shri Nilesh Mallappa Pujari .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.J.Shekhar i/b.J.Shekhar & Co. for the applicant. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr.J.Shekhar for the applicant and Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant owns Maruti Esteem Car which is said to have been taken charge of vide panchnama dated 5.11.2006. The said car is owned by the petitioner. The documents in support of the same are produced before this Court. 3. According to the prosecution, the said car was used in the commission of the offence and, therefore, the same came to be seized. When the application for return of the car filed by the applicant, the same came to be rejected by order dated 4.10.2007 forthwith. 4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the ( 2 ) case, revision is admitted. Rule is issued on the revision. 6. Learned A.P.P. Smt.Shinde waives service of the revision on behalf of the State. Petition is taken up for hearing considering the point involved and the article, namely; the "CAR" involved. 7. Learned Advocate Mr.Shekhar upon instructions made a statement before this Court that the petitioner admits panchnama dated 5.11.2006 by which the car was taken in custody by the concerned police department. 8. The question is whether the car should lie at the police station or can be returned to the petitioner on usual terms considering the fact that the trial could not start in near future. If the car is retained at the police station, it might get rusted and ultimately become a junk. In my view, having admitted the panchnama dated 5.11.2006, the petitioner’s car can be returned to the petitioner though it is alleged to have been used in the commission of offence and that the petitioner is shown as an accused. The petitioner will have to execute a bond for return of this car. Hence, the following order :- ( 3 ) a) The impugned order dated 4.10.2007 below Exhibit-"9" in Sessions Case No.131 of 2007 is set aside in its place. b) It is hereby ordered that the police officers of Loni Kalbor police station shall return the Maruti Esteem Car bearing No.MH-12-CA-1696 to the petitioner upon petitioner executing a bond in the sum of Rs.2.00 lacs and upon furnishing an Undertaking to the Court of learned Ad-hoc District Judge-III and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune that the petitioner will produce the car before the Court as and when required and that he shall not transfer the said car till the disposal of the case. c) If the petitioner fails to comply with the order of the production of the car before the Court as and when required, it will be open for the State to apply for taking charge of the car again. 9. Petition stands disposed off in the above terms. ( 4 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)