Bombay High Court
Shantanu Dnyaneshwar NisalversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision application is allowed; the lower court’s order rejecting the release of the vehicle is quashed and the car is to be returned to the applicant upon furnishing an indemnity bond.
Summary
The applicant, Shantanu Dnyaneshwar Nisal, filed a criminal revision seeking the release of his Toyota Fortuner seized by police in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The prosecution alleged that the vehicle, without a number plate, was used by a co-accused to flee the scene of a murder attempt and in other offences. The applicant contended he was not arraigned, the FIR did not mention the car, and he needed it for personal and family use, offering to produce it before the Sessions Judge on an indemnity bond. The High Court observed that the applicant was not an accused, the vehicle was merely evidence, and an indemnity bond would safeguard its availability for trial. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision, quashed the lower court’s order, and ordered the car returned to the applicant upon furnishing an indemnity bond.
Issues considered
- Whether a vehicle seized as evidence in a MCOCA case can be released to its owner who is not an accused, pending trial
- Whether the absence of the vehicle’s mention in the FIR and the applicant’s non-arraignment justify its release
Legislation cited
Subjects
- criminal revision
- seizure of property
- MCOCA
- evidence
- indemnity bond
- property release
Judgment
45-REVN-445-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION. NO. 445 OF 2026
Shantanu Dnyaneshwar Nisal ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Mihir Kasliwal (Through VC) a/w Mr.Mahesh Pawar, for the Applicant.
Ms.R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
____________________________________________________________
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.17
10:54:25 +0530 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the impugned
order dated 29th July 2026 passed below Exhibit-1 in Criminal M.A. No.38
of 2026, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, whereby the
Application filed by the Applicant for release of the property i.e. Toyota
Fortuner car bearing No.MH-15-HZ-0072 is rejected.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 5th October 2025 the co-accused
tried to kill the injured on the ground of the financial dispute. It is alleged
that the car of present Applicant was used by co-accused to flee away from
the incident spot. At the time of incident, the said car was without number
plate and it was used for extortion in other matters and provisions of the
Page 1 of 3
45-REVN-445-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA Act’ for
short) is applied in the present case.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the
Applicant has not been arraigned as an accused in the present crime. The
vehicle seized from the house of the Applicant. In the FIR there is no
reference of the car. The Applicant is ready to produce the said car before
the learned Sessions Judge as and when required. The Applicant needs the
car for personal use and for family purpose. He is owner of the car and
requested to allow the Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the said car was used in the
present crime it was without number place. It was used in other offences
also. It is part of the evidence. If the said car is released, the Applicant may
dispose it off. The learned Judge has passed well reasoned order and no
interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel.
6. The Applicant is not accused in the present crime. It is alleged
that the said car was used in the present crime and was used in other crimes
also. The Applicant is owner of the said car. It is alleged that it was used by
Accused No.18 in the present crime. The Applicant needs the car for
personal use and for family purpose. The car is stationed in Police station, if
Page 2 of 3
45-REVN-445-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
it is not used it will get damaged. If the indemnity bond taken by the
applicant to produce the said car as and when required before learned
Sessions Judge would suffice and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29th July 2026 passed by
learned Seesions Judge, Nashik is quashed and set aside
(iii) The vehicle Toyota Fortuner car bearing No.MH-15-
HZ-0072, Variant 2.8L 2WD 6MT, be returned to the
Applicant with furnishing Indemnity Bond.
(iv) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…