Bombay High Court
Mahendra Kisan PasalkarversusAnita Ramesh Padale
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court allowed the interim application, permitting withdrawal of the deposited amount with interest, subject to an undertaking to return it if required.
Summary
The applicant, Mahendra Kishan Pasalkar, filed an interim application seeking withdrawal of Rs.15,40,000 deposited by Respondent No.1, who is the accused in the underlying criminal case. Respondent No.1 objected, asserting a strong case and that the order was under challenge. The court heard counsel for both parties, noting that the applicant is the complainant and the accused had deposited the amount pursuant to a lower court order. Considering these facts, the court allowed the application, permitting the applicant to withdraw the deposited amount with interest, subject to an undertaking to return it if required. The order was pronounced by Justice Shivkumar Dige.
Issues considered
- What is the propriety of allowing the applicant to withdraw the amount deposited by the accused under the interim application?
Subjects
- interim application
- withdrawal of deposit
- criminal procedure
- accused deposit
- court order
Judgment
40-IA-3403-26 IN REVN-330-2026 (Withdrawal).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3403 OF 2026
IN
REVN/330/2026
Mahendra Kishan Pasalkar ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH Anita Ramesh Padale ...Applicant
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.30
18:27:47 +0530
VERSUS
Mahendra Kishan Pasalkar & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr.Hemant Ghadigaonkar a/w Mr.Om Gandhi, for the Applicant.
Mr.Dattatray Yadav i/b Mr.R.S. Gangawane, for Respondent No.1.
Ms.R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent No.2-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking withdrawal of
Rs.15,40,000/- deposited by the Respondent No.1-Accused.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, Respondent No.1 and
learned APP for Respondent No.2-State.
4. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has strongly objected
to allow the Application stating that the Respondent No.1 has good case
and he has challenged the order passed Court below.
5. I have heard both learned counsel.
Page 1 of 2
40-IA-3403-26 IN REVN-330-2026 (Withdrawal).doc
N.S.Kamble
6. The Applicant is Complainant. The Respondent No.1 is
accused. He has deposited the amount. The Courts below has passed
order against the Respondent No.1.
7. Considering this fact, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The Applicant is permitted to withdraw
Rs.15,40,000/- deposited by Respondent No.1 alongwith
interest, if any, with an undertaking that he will deposit the
amount, if required.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.