Ladda 1 revn-6-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 6 of 2010 Naushad Usman Gani Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s order. ...... Mr N. V. Sharma , Advocate for the Applicant. Mr J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 19th April, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application preferred by apparently the owner of Scorpio jeep. 2. Perused the order dated 11th September, 2009 impugned in the present petition. Said order was passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Application No. 78 of 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. By the said order the vehicle in question was allowed to be given in the possession of present applicant on certain conditions and mainly on the condition as to furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs.5 lakhs and not creating third party interest and producing the same before the Court as and when required. Apparently, an application was made before the same Court for modification of the order asking for release of the Ladda 2 revn-6-10.doc vehicle on simple bond of Rs.5 lakhs instead of bank guarantee. 3. Apparently, the present applicant is not an accused involved in the matter of offence which is C.R. No. II/74/2008 of Nalasopara Police Station. On repeated asking the learned Counsel for the applicant, he is unable to answer as to in which criminal offence said vehicle was seized by the police. Even such is the answer on behalf of the learned A.P.P. as to not giving any further better information. Thereafter, on going through the papers in the present matter it appears that the said vehicle was seized by the concerned police in the matter of offence punishable under the N.D.P.S.Act. Reportedly, the special case under the N.D.P.S.Act is still pending. In view of these circumstances and considering the involvement of the vehicle in the offence under N.D.P.S.Act, it is not in the fitness of situation to interfere with the order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane and there is nothing to interfere with the said order. In the result, present application stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)