Bombay High Court
AKSHAY NANASO MHARNURversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the lower court orders and directed that the seized vehicle be released to the petitioner subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, including execution of an indemnity bond.
Summary
The petitioner, a farmer, owned a white Hyundai Creta (Reg. No. MH-09-CV-6699) that was seized in connection with Crime No. 197 of 2026. He filed a writ petition seeking quash of the lower court orders authorising the seizure and requesting release of the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond. The petitioner’s counsel submitted the registration certificate proving ownership and assured that the vehicle would not be used for illegal purposes. The State’s counsel indicated that, provided the petitioner executed an indemnity bond and complied with conditions, the police had no objection to returning the vehicle. The High Court, after noting the petitioner’s ownership and the lack of dispute, allowed the petition in respect of the relief sought, directing that the vehicle be released subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, including execution of an indemnity bond and a specific undertaking to produce the vehicle when required. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge authorising seizure of the vehicle can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner, as the owner, is entitled to the release of the seized vehicle pending trial.
- Whether the High Court can condition the release of the seized vehicle on the execution of an indemnity bond and other undertakings.
Subjects
- seizure of property
- vehicle seizure
- criminal writ petition
- indemnity bond
- release of seized property
- high court order
- criminal procedure
Judgment
86 - CR WP - 677 - 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.10.06
20:06:05 +0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 677 OF 2026
Akshay Nanaso Mharnur
Age - 27 years, Occu. - Farming,
Residing at – Vithurayachi wadi,
Tal – KavatheMahankal,
District – Sangli.
… Petitioner
Versus.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Sangola Police Station,
Tal- Sangola, Dist-Solapur.
Pin- 413307
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Solapur Gramin, Solapur,
Pin- 413001
… Respondents
--------
Mr. Abhay Jadhavar with Mr. Ganesh M. Khatkale for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the State.
B. S. Lengre, Police Naik, Sangola Police Station, is present.
--------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 6, 2026
ORAL ORDER:-
1. Heard Mr. Abhay Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
VRJ 1
86 - CR WP - 677 - 2026.doc
and Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the State.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought the following
substantive relief:
“A. Issue a writ, quash and set aside the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by
the ld. JMFC, Court No.-2 Sangola in Criminal Misc. Application No. 111 of
2026.
B. Quash and set aside the order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the ld.
Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Criminal Revision Application
No.13 of 2026.
C. Release the vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-09-CV-6699
(HYUNDAI MOTORS LTD, MODEL CRETA) in favour of the petitioner on such
terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
D. Permit the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond and undertaking
for production of the vehicle as and when directed by the competent court.
E. Grant any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
3. Mr. Abhay Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, states
that the subject vehicle, i.e., a white-coloured Creta car bearing
Registration No. MH-09-CV-6699 (“seized Vehicle”), is involved in
Crime No. 197 of 2026. He submits that the Petitioner owns the seized
Vehicle. He refers to the document at Exhibit ‘A’, page No. 12, i.e. the
Registration Certificate of the seized Vehicle, wherein the name of the
Petitioner is shown as the Owner. He further submits that the seized
Vehicle belongs exclusively to the Petitioner and that no other person
has any right or interest in it.
VRJ 2
86 - CR WP - 677 - 2026.doc
4. Mr. Abhay Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits
that if the custody of the seized Vehicle is released to the Petitioner, the
Petitioner shall maintain the same as it is, furnish the required
Indemnity Bond and abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
for release of the seized Vehicle. He further submits that the seized
Vehicle will not be used for any unauthorized purpose or illegal
activities. He submits that keeping the seized Vehicle with the Police
would deteriorate it and serve no purpose.
5. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP, submits that if the Petitioner, who is
the owner of the seized Vehicle, furnishes the required Indemnity Bond
and further undertakes to abide by all the conditions that would be
imposed while releasing the seized Vehicle, the Respondents have no
objection to handing over the seized Vehicle to the Petitioner.
6. The Petitioner, being the owner of the seized Vehicle, is not in
dispute.
7. In view of the above and the statements made by Mr. Abhay
Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, this Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the seized Vehicle is ordered
to be released to the Petitioner, subject to the conditions that the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Sangola (“Trial Court”) may
deem fit and appropriate to impose for handing over the seized Vehicle
VRJ 3
86 - CR WP - 677 - 2026.doc
to the Petitioner, including the execution of the necessary Indemnity
Bond by the Petitioner and a specific undertaking from the Petitioner
that the Petitioner shall produce the seized Vehicle before the Trial
Court as and when required by the Trial Court.
8. Writ Petition No.677 of 2026 is disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
VRJ 4
Checking your session…