Bombay High Court
BALARAM KUMAR PALENDRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The High Court held that the Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the application and quashed the order, directing the return of the seized property to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, a manager of B.N. Jewels, sought the return of gold and dust seized by police during an investigation of a robbery. The Sessions Judge had rejected both the owner's and the petitioner's applications for return, citing lack of dimensions, hallmark details, and the presence of multiple claims. The petitioner contended that the seized items were his, supported by a tax invoice and a purity report, and that neither the accused nor the investigating officer objected to the return. The High Court found the Sessions Judge had taken a hyper‑technical view and was not justified in denying the return, noting contemporaneous evidence that the property was stolen from the petitioner. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Sessions Judge to release the seized property to the petitioner upon furnishing a suitable bond.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application for return of seized property.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of seized property under the provisions of criminal procedure.
- Whether the High Court can quash the Sessions Judge's order under its writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- seized property
- return of seized property
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- sessions court discretion
- property recovery
Judgment
34 CRI WP 1877-25.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2025
Balram Kumar Palendra ..Petitioner
Aged about 28 years
Of Bombay, adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing/Working at Room No. 202,
Amir Industrial Estate, Sitaram Jadhav
Marg, Sun Mil Compound, Lower Parel,
(West), Mumbai – 400 013.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra …Respondents
thr. Matunga Police Station,
to be served through Public Prosecutor,
High Court (A.S.), Mumbai.
2. Parul N. Srivastav (Accused No. 6),
Add- Siddhivinayak Chawl, Samsan
Bhumi, Titwala (West), Thane.
Mr. Sushil Upadhyay a/w Mr. Ankit R. Upadhyay, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the Respondent No. 1 – State.
P.I. Keshav D. Wagh, Matunga P. S., Mumbai.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT:
SANTOSH by
Digitally signed
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.12
19:02:06 +0530
consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard Anally.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 01 st
August, 2024, whereby an application preferred by the
SAINATH 1/6
34 CRI WP 1877-25.DOC
petitioner for return of the property seized, during the course of
investigation, came to be rejected.
3. Shorn of superDuities, the background facts can be stated
as under:-
3.1 The petitioner is working as a Manager with the M/s. B. N.
Jewels owned by Shri. Biswanath Shabhunath Pal. The said
company has its branch at Ratanpur, Hugli, in the state of West
Bengal.
3.2 On 18th December, 2023, the petitioner and his associates
were carrying two bags containing casting gold and gold Aling
dust; the residue of the gold ornaments. At about 00:15 a.m.,
the Taxi in which the petitioner and his associates were traveling
was intercepted and the robbers de-camped with a trolley bag
containing 35 kg casting gold and gold Aling dust. Hence, the
petitioner lodged a report with Matunga Police Station.
3.3 During the course of investigation, the accused were
apprehended and cash amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs) casting gold and Aling dust as well as a yellow metal
ingot were recovered.
SAINATH 2/6
34 CRI WP 1877-25.DOC
3.4 Initially Biswanath Pal, the owner of B.N. Jewels, Aled an
application for return of the seized property. The learned
Sessions Judge was persuaded to reject the application as the
seized property was in the possession of the Arst informant and
not Mr. Biswanath Pal, when it was stolen, and the Investigating
Agency had given no objection for return of the seized property
to the Arst informant. It was further noted that, the applicant
therein had not tendered the dimensions and the hallmark
details of the alleged stolen property.
3.5 Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an application (Exh.
22) for return of the seized property. By the impugned order, the
learned Sessions Judge was again persuaded to reject the
application observing, inter alia, that, though the owner of B. N.
Jewels had given no objection for return of the seized property
to the petitioner, yet, there were two claims and having regard to
the quantum of the seized property, it would be inappropriate to
return the seized property to the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
5. I have heard Mr. Sushil Upadhyay, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, and Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, the learned APP for the
SAINATH 3/6
34 CRI WP 1877-25.DOC
Respondent No. 1 – State. I have also perused the documents
and material on record.
6. Evidently, neither the accused from whom the seized
property was allegedly recovered, nor the Investigating OfAcer
had raised any objection to the return of the seized property to
the petitioner. Biswanath Pal, the owner of B. N. Jewels, has
Aled an afAdavit giving no objection for return of the property to
the petitioner. The Investigating OfAcer had in terms stated that,
the investigation revealed that, the seized property belonged to
the petitioner.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, in the circumstances of the
case, took a very hypertechnical view of the matter. The
petitioner had placed on record a tax invoice. A testing report
from Vaikunth Somaiya Jwellers, indicating the purity of the
gold ingot and the value of casting gold and Aling dust was also
obtained. In the absence of any claim from the accused or any
other person, when the Arst application was preferred by
Biswanath Pal, owner of B. N. Jewels, was rejected on the
premise that, the Investigating OfAcer had given no objection to
the return of the seized property to the Arst informant and not
Biswanath Pal, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have
SAINATH 4/6
34 CRI WP 1877-25.DOC
exercised the discretion to return the seized property in a more
judicious manner. There is contemporaneous record to indicate
that, the property was stolen from the possession of the
petitioner and, prima facie, material to establish the nexus
between the said stolen property and the seized property. The
learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justiAed in rejecting
the application for return of the seized property. The petition,
therefore, deserves to be allowed.
8. Hence, the following order:-
::ORDER::
I) The petition stands allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 01st August,
2024 stands quashed and set aside.
iii) The application for return of seized property
(Exh. 22) in Sessions Case No. 388/2024 stands
allowed.
iv) The seized property be returned to the
petitioner/Arst informant upon furnishing a
supratnama/indemnity bond of the amount as may
SAINATH 5/6
34 CRI WP 1877-25.DOC
be determined by the learned Sessions Judge, and
subject to terms and conditions as may be imposed
by the learned Sessions Judge.
v) Necessary order for release of the seized
property in favour of the petitioner/Arst informant
be passed by the learned Sessions Judge within a
period of two weeks from today.
vi) No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH 6/6
Checking your session…