1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5731 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ..Applicant versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs. Revati Mohite-Dere for Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste - APP for State. Mr. Rajiv J. Mane i/b. A. T. Agarwal for Respondent No. 4. Mr. P. M. Rustomkhan for Respondent No. 9. Mr. Kejal Bang i/b. Dave and Girish and Co. for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent, 2. By way of present application, the applicant challenges the Order dated 14th July 2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.203/N/2006 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, thereby allowing an application filed by the present applicant for return of the property. The applicant takes an exception only to the extent of the order, which requires that applicant shall keep the 2 amount in fixed deposit so as to get interest thereon. 3. Undisputedly the amount which has been permitted to be returned to the present applicant is a subject matter of C.R. No. 452 of 2000 registered by Khetwadi Police Station. The learned Magistrate while finding merit in the application of the applicant for grant of interim custody of the said amount has allowed application. The said order has not been challenged by any of the respondents before this Court. The learned counsel for respondent no. 9 objects to this application on the ground that in the event at the conclusion of the trial if any of the respondents is found entitled to return of the amount then the question would be at what rate the interest should be paid to such persons. He therefore submits that the order which directs the deposit in the fixed deposit receipts warrants no interference. 4. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has also passed an order directing the present applicant – Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to execute the bond. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bond has already been submitted. 5. I find that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the application is allowed in as much as the interest of all the claimants has been secured by directing an indemnity bond to be executed by the trial 3 court. In so far as grievance of the respondent no. 9 regarding an entitlement of interest at the conclusion of the trial is concerned, the learned trial court at the conclusion of the trial can always direct interest to be paid at the rate payable upon deposits in the fixed deposit receipts. I find that the interest of the parties would be safeguarded by directing the applicant to file an undertaking before the learned trial court that in the event if at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court finds any amount to be returned to any of the respondents, the applicant shall pay the interest on the basis of the interest that would have been earned on that amount at the prevailing rate payable to the fixed deposit receipts. 6. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and with a further direction to the applicant to furnish an undertaking before the learned trial court as aforesaid. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)