Bombay High Court

Rahul Arjun ManeversusThe State ofMaharashtra

Disposal: Rejected

Holding

The criminal revision application seeking custody of the gold chain is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Rahul Arjun Mane, filed a criminal revision under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking custody of a gold chain that had been seized in connection with a crime. The gold chain, originally gifted to an accused, was later mortgaged to a financial institution, which was instructed by police not to release it. The applicant argued he would repay the loan if the chain were returned, but the court noted that a similar earlier application had already been rejected. Both the State’s Assistant Public Prosecutor and the financial institution opposed the application on grounds of non‑maintainability and lack of merit. The High Court held that the revision application must be dismissed, as the chain remains with the bank under police direction and the earlier rejection precludes a fresh order. Consequently, the application was rejected without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

The maintainability of a second application seeking the same relief after an earlier rejection
Whether the applicant is entitled to custody of seized property under Section 497 BNSS
The adequacy of the applicant's claim to repay the loan as a basis for release of the gold chain

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 497

Subjects

criminal revision
custody of seized property
Section 497 BNSS
duplicate application
police seizure
financial institution
gold chain

Judgment

                                                     904-REVN-46-2026.doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 46 OF 2026

Rahul Arjun Mane                                        …Applicant
     Vs
The State Of Maharashtra                             …Respondent

Mr. Prasad Kamthe a/w Mr. Vinayak Belgaonkar, Advocate for the
Applicant
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, advocate for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Avinash Naik, APP for the State
Mr. V. B. Gavade, HC, Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli

                      CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
                      DATE    : 4 SEPTEMBER 2026

P. C. :
1.      The present Criminal Revision Application challenges an order

of rejection of an application filed by the Applicant under Section

497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS),

seeking custody of a gold chain seized in a crime.

2.      The impugned order was passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sangli, on 5 March 2026, wherein it is noted that

earlier an application of a similar nature preferred by the Applicant,

numbered as Exhibit 164, was rejected by an order dated 17

November 2025.



                                 1/3
Iresh
                                                      904-REVN-46-2026.doc


3.      Admittedly, the Applicant is not the owner of the gold chain.

The case narrated is that one Mr. Kulkarni had gifted the subject gold

chain to one Mr. Jadhav, who is an accused (Accused No. 12) in the

crime. The said Jadhav gave the gold chain to the Applicant, and the

Applicant obtained a loan from a financial institution in the name of

one Mr. Kamble. Subsequently, according to the Applicant, the loan

with the financial institution was repaid and the gold chain was

returned back to him. However, thereafter, the Applicant again

obtained a loan by mortgaging the gold chain with the financial

institution. Subsequently, in a crime registered with Vishrambag

Police Station, the police intervened, and communication was issued

to the bank/financial institution not to hand over the gold chain to

any person as it is subject matter of a recorded crime. The case of the

Applicant is that he is ready to repay the entire loan amount to the

financial institution as soon as the gold chain is returned to him.


4.      The learned APP as well as the learned counsel appearing for

the financial institution oppose the application, submitting that it is

not maintainable since the impugned order has been passed on a

second application seeking identical relief. It is further submitted

that even on merits, no case is made out.

                                  2/3
Iresh
                                                                 904-REVN-46-2026.doc


5.       Having heard learned counsel for all sides, this Court is of the

view that the application deserves to be rejected. The gold chain is

with       the      bank/financial        institution,   and   the   police    have

communicated that the same should not be handed over to any

person as it is involved in a crime. Moreover, an earlier application

preferred on similar grounds was already rejected by the Sessions

Court.

6.       In view of the above, there is no merit in the present Criminal

Revision Application, and the same stands rejected. No order as to

costs.



                                                           (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)


        IRESH
                    Digitally signed by
               IRESH MASHAL

        MASHAL Date: 2026.09.09
               18:25:48 +0530




                                            3/3
Iresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…