1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.787 OF 2009 Sudhir Rangrao Khade : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent ... Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the petitioner. Ms M.H. Mhatre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has applied to this Court for a direction for return of the documents seized by the prosecution in the raid conducted in his house. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that those documents are seized under a seizure panchanama and are part of the record of the trial. 2. Mr.Mundargi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the documents which the petitioner prayed for return of are the following:- 2 “1. The Original Sale Deed dated 04.01.2003, pertaining to land at Sangrul. 2. Original Passbook of Account No.57/7338 of Kolhapur Madhyavarti Sahakari Bank. 3. Original Passbook of Account No.20480 of Yashwant Co-op. Bank. 4. A red coloured file containing L.I.C. documents in original. 5. A Khaki/brown coloured file containing loan documents pertaining to flat from Vijay Bank. 6. A Khaki/brown coloured file containing references from Member of Parliaments and other documents etc.” They were seized in a raid conducted in the petitioner’s house on 30.4.2005 apparently in respect of the murder of one Barmulla Khan which is said to have taken place on 5.1.2007. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has not at all applied its mind to the relevance of the documents to the trial but has merely rejected the application on the ground that they are part of the record and, therefore, necessary for trial. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State refers to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the police. In that reply, however, there is no reason pointing out any possible connection of the above documents to the incident in question i.e. the murder. However, in the 3 reply, the Officer has stated that there is a diary which refers to the money transactions and phone numbers which were used by the petitioner at the relevant time. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of view that it would not prejudice the prosecution case if the original of these documents which are apparently necessary for the petitioner to conduct his day-to-day affairs, are returned to him after retaining certified copies of the same. 3. It is, accordingly, directed that the aforesaid documents, item nos.1 to 6, be returned to the petitioner by retaining certified copies of those documents and upon execution of a bond by the petitioner that he shall produce the originals as and when required at the trial. 4. The petitioner has not apparently not prayed for return of the diary mentioned in the reply. Accordingly, that diary may be retained by the prosecution. 5. This Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of. S.A. BOBDE, J.