Bombay High Court

SURESH SHAMRAO SHINDEversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court allowed the interim return of the seized jewellery subject to valuation, photographic documentation, and an undertaking to return or deposit an equivalent amount if required by the final judgment.

Summary

Suresh Shamrao Shinde, convicted under sections 120(B), 385 and 34 of the IPC, appealed his conviction while the CBI appealed his acquittal in a Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime (MCOC) case. At the time of his 2015 arrest, several gold ornaments were seized and a panchanama was prepared. The Special Court, in its conviction order, directed that the seized jewellery be returned to Shinde after the appeal period. Shinde filed an interim application seeking the return of the jewellery, citing his dire financial condition and the need for his sons' education. The CBI did not oppose the relief. The High Court, after considering the evidence of the investigating officer and the trial court’s direction, allowed the interim application subject to conditions of valuation, photographic documentation, and an undertaking to return or deposit an equivalent amount if the appeal outcome requires it.

Issues considered

Whether an interim order for the return of seized property can be granted while the appeal is pending.
Whether the seized jewellery forms part of the alleged offence or is merely evidence subject to forfeiture.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 34, 385, 387, 452, 465, 468, 471
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act — s. 3(2), 3(4), 3(I)(ii)

Subjects

interim relief
seizure of property
return of confiscated items
appeal pending
MCOC
criminal procedure
valuation
undertaking

Judgment

IA-1314-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1314 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2024

Suresh Shamrao Shinde ... Applicant
Versus
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO Central Bureau of Investigation and another … Respondents
Digitally signed
by SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
------------------
Date:
2026.09.07
18:24:24 +0530 Mr. Prakash L. Shetty, a/w Mr. Dnyanesh S. Bhatkhande for Applicant.
Mr. Pradip D. Gharat for Respondent No. 1 – CBI.
Mr. Amit Munde, APP for Respondent No. 2 – State.
--------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 07th SEPTEMBER 2026.

ORDER (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT J.)

1. Heard Shri. Prakash Shetty, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and

Special Public Prosecutor Shri Pradeep Gharat for Respondent CBI.

2. The present interim application has been filed by the Applicant in

Criminal Appeal No. 16/2024, for return of the jewellery and other items

seized from his person at the time of his arrest, vide Panchanama Exhibit

117 in MCOC Special Case No. 4 of 2018 a/w MCOC Special Case No. 3 of

2019.

3. The Applicant was arraigned as Accused No. 1 in MCOC Special Case

Bhalerao 1
IA-1314-2026.docx

4 of 2018 @ 3 of 2019. The Applicant was arrested on 7 th October 2015.

After conclusion of the trial, the Applicant along with other co-accused were

convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) read with 385

read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 2 years and fine of

Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each.

The Applicant along with other co-accused were acquitted from the offences

punishable under Section 387, 452, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of the IPC

and also under Section 3(I)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

4. Against the order of conviction, the Applicant has preferred an appeal

before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2021 and against the

order of acquittal, the Respondent CBI has preferred an appeal before this

Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2024. Both the appeals are pending

before this Court.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that at the time of

arrest of the Applicant, the Investigating Officer had seized certain articles,

which were found on his person and panchanama to that effect was also

drawn. The learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to the

evidence of PW-34, the Investigating Officer, who deposed about the

recovery of the articles during the personal search of the Applicant. The

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Special Court, while

convicting the Applicant, in para 4 of the operative part of the order, was

Bhalerao 2
IA-1314-2026.docx

pleased to observe that the property, i.e. the wristwatch (Article 13), golden

chain (Article 16), golden chain (Article 19), golden bracelet (Article 22), 4

golden rings (Article 25 collectively), golden bracelet (Article 28) and 1 ring

(Article 31), be returned to Accused No. 1 after the appeal period is over.

6. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the Applicant is in dire need

of these gold ornaments as his financial condition is bleak and that his two

sons want to pursue their higher studies and therefore if the gold ornaments

are returned to him, he can utilise the amount for the same. The Learned

Counsel further submitted that the Applicant had preferred an application

before the trial court for return of the property however the same was

rejected as the appeal is pending before this Court.

7. The CBI has also filed its reply. The CBI, in its reply has fairly not

opposed the reliefs claimed by the Applicant in the application and has

prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate order,

subject to conditions being imposed.

8. We have perused the application and the reply filed by the CBI. We do

not find any reason to deny the relief to the Applicant pending the appeal.

The evidence of PW-4 Investigating Officer shows that the said articles were

recovered from the person of the Applicant and even the Trial Court has

directed that the same be handed over to the Applicant after the appeal

period is over. It is not the case that the Respondent CBI that the seized

Bhalerao 3
IA-1314-2026.docx

ornament/articles are part of any crime or that the Applicant is convicted for

the offence of extortion. We are therefore inclined to allow the application.

Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to following conditions:

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)

which is as under:

“(b) To return the jewelleries seized from his person at the
time of arrest vide Panchanama Exhibit 117 in MCOC Special
Case No. 4 of 2018 along with MCOC Special Case No. 3 of
2019 from the file of Learned Special Judge (MCOC),
Mumbai being wristwatch (Article 13), gold chain (Article
16), gold chain (Article 19), gold bracelet (Article 22),
another gold bracelet (Article 28), four golden rings (Article
25) and one ring (Article 31), presently lying in the custody
of the Registrar, Special Court for MCOC, Sessions Court at
Greater Bombay on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble
Court shall deem fit and proper.”

(ii) The Registrar, Special Court for MCOCA, Sessions Court

at Greater Bombay, shall before return of the articles

mentioned in prayer clause (b), ensure that valuation of the

gold ornaments is done and proper photographs of the same

are taken and the same are preserved.

iii) The Applicant shall file an undertaking, that in the event,

at the conclusion of the Appeal, it is directed by this Court

that the aforementioned articles be deposited in the court,

Bhalerao 4
IA-1314-2026.docx

the Applicant shall return the same within a period of 15

days. The Undertaking of the Applicant shall also state that in

the event the Applicant is not in a position to return/deposit

the gold ornaments, an amount equivalent to the amount

arrived at in the valuation report will be deposited in the

Court. The filing of such an Undertaking shall be a condition

precedent for handing over of the articles.

9. Accordingly, the application is disposed of in the above terms.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Bhalerao 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…