1 680.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 680 OF 2011 Shrikant Parmeshwar Kamble. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Subhash Zha i/b. Law Global for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 4th August 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The applicant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the condition as imposed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 5th July 2011 passed in M.A.No.351/MISC/11 arising out of C.R.No.83/2011 while allowing the application for return of property i.e. Bulk Bitumen in motor tankers. 3. The applicant is a transporter having office at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The applicant engaged two tankers for transportation of bulk bitumen from HPCL , Mumbai to Nasik. While the tankers were proceeding towards Nasik, on 16th May 2011, they were stopped and the persons therein were arrested on the allegation that the drivers of the said tankers were 2 680.11-apl indulged in theft of bitumen. Accordingly, the said tankers with bitumen were seized. The learned trial Court had earlier allowed the application of the owner of the tankers and released the tankers. The applicant then applied for release of bitumen contending that it belongs to him. Learned trial Court accepted the contention of the applicant that bitumen was belonging to him and allowed his application, though directed him to execute a bond of Rs.12 lakh with solvent surety of Rs.6 lakh. Learned trial Court also directed him not to sell, mortgage and transfer the said bitumen in any way till the disposal of the criminal case. 4. It can, thus, be seen that according to the trial Court the bitumen belongs to the applicant and the applicant is not even alleged to have been engaged in the theft. According to the learned A.P.P., the valuation of the bitumen is around Rs.9 lakh. 5. Bitumen is not such a product which would be necessary for the purpose of trial. In that view of the matter, I find that the aforesaid two conditions, which require the applicant furnish solvent surety and further prevent him from selling or mortgaging the said property, deserve to be quashed and set aside. The same are, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the impugned order is modified, subject to the condition that the applicant shall execute bond in the sum of Rs.9 lakh. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)