Bombay High Court

DEEPAK BHARGAVAversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR

Decided: 23 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The revision application is allowed, directing the CBI to return the locker keys subject to the applicant providing adequate security for the seized jewellery and utensils.

Summary

The applicant, Arjun Vitthal, original accused No.8, filed a criminal revision seeking the return of keys to a Bank of India locker seized by the CBI in 2012, which contained gold jewellery and silver utensils. The Special Judge had rejected his application, but the High Court noted that the locker had remained unused for over 14 years and the trial involved many witnesses, indicating a lengthy proceeding. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that seized property may be returned subject to adequate security. Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision, directing the CBI to return the locker keys once the applicant provides satisfactory security for the contents and undertakes to deposit the keys as ordered. The order is conditional on the applicant furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Special Judge.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to the return of the locker keys and seized jewellery and utensils pending trial
Whether the CBI may retain seized property without the applicant furnishing security
Applicability of the Supreme Court’s principles on custody and return of seized property to this case

Subjects

criminal revision
seizure of property
return of locker keys
CBI
security for seized assets
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

                                                                               28-REVN-346-2017.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2017

ARJUN                 Deepak Bhargava                                          ...Applicant
VITTHAL                      Versus
KUDHEKAR              The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.               ...Respondents
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL                                    ——————
KUDHEKAR              Ms. Angana Sarmah i/b Diwakar Singh, for the Applicant.
Date: 2026.09.24
20:50:24 +0530
                      Mr. Amit Munde, SPP a/w Shantanu Nakashe & Parth Tari, for Respondent
                      No.1-CBI
                      Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for the State.
                                                      ——————
                                                         Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                         Date: 23 September 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      In this Criminal Revision Application, the challenge is to the Order

                      dated 24th March 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI,

                      City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, below Exhibit-47 in CBI

                      Special Case No.118 of 2013 (“impugned Order”).

                      2.      By the impugned Order, the said Application bearing Exhibit-47,

                      seeking return of the keys of the bank locker maintained by the

                      Applicant with the Bank of India, has been rejected. The Applicant is

                      Original Accused No.8.

                      3.      Although Mr. Munde, learned SPP, strongly opposes the

                      Application, however, it is required to be noted that the keys of the said

                      locker were taken into possession by the CBI in or about 2012 and, for

                      last 14 years, the said locker has not been used.


                      Arjun                                  1
                                                       28-REVN-346-2017.doc


4.       In the said locker, gold jewellery weighing approximately 930.80

grams and silver utensils weighing approximately 2.300 kilograms were

found when the said locker was seized.

5.       As the said locker and the said jewellery have not been used for

the last more than 14 years and, insofar as CBI Special Case No. 118 of

2013 is concerned, there are a total of 15 witnesses, out of whom

approximately 12 have been examined, thus, it is clear that the

conclusion of the trial will take considerable time.

6.       The Supreme Court in the decision of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai

v. State of Gujarat 1, has laid down the relevant principles regarding the

custody and return of seized property.

7.       Thus, in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court,

Exhibit-47 Application, praying for a direction to the CBI to return back

the locker keys seized during the investigation of Crime No. 4/E/2012, is

allowed.

8.       However, the Applicant to give adequate security for the said

jewellery and silver utensils to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for

CBI and shall also give an undertaking that, as and when directed by the

learned Judge, the keys of the said locker shall be deposited before the

Court.




1    (2002) 10 SCC 283


Arjun                               2
                                                       28-REVN-346-2017.doc


9.      Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed in above

terms.


                                                 [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                               3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.