Final Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: .. 1.. Cr. M. A. No.1462 of 2026 / Exh.1.
Tufail Vs. State of Maharashtra
MHMM130318722026
-: CRIMINAL M.A. NO.1462 OF 2026 :-
-: ORDER BELOW EXH.1 :-
This is an application, filed by the applicant Tufail Ahmed
Shahabullah Khan, R/o – Azad Nagar, Akbar Lala Compound, Near
Salfiya Masjid, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-86 under section 503 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Surksha Sahinta, for interim custody of motorcycle
bearing Registration No. MH-03-DB-4609. It is contended by the
applicant that the said vehicle is owned by him and it is seized by
Police Station, Deonar in Crime No.464/2026 for an offence punishable
u/sec. 132, 121(1), 221, 281, 189(2), 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahinta
and Section 184 M. V. Act and it is in their custody. He uses the said
vehicle for the purpose of attending his daily work. If the vehicle
remained idle in the custody of police, it will be damaged due to its
non use. It is contended that, if the seized vehicle is given in his interim
custody, he will abide all terms and conditions imposed by the Hon'ble
court. Thus, the applicant prayed for the interim custody of the
aforesaid vehicle on indemnity bond.
2. Say of Investigating Officer, A.P.P. and accused is called on
this application.
3. Investigating Officer has no objection to handover the
seized motorcycle to the applicant. Also, Ld. A.P.P. stated in her say
that the seized motorcycle may be given to the applicant after taking
-- 1 of 4 --
.. 2.. Cr. M. A. No.1462 of 2026 / Exh.1.
Tufail Vs. State of Maharashtra
the say of accused. accordingly, accused namely Mohd. Sakib
Rehmatullah Shaikh and Zuhair Ahmed Khan have filed their affidavit-cum-
no objection to handover the seized motorcycle to the applicant.
4. At the outset it is pertinent to note here that, the present
applicant is not the accused in alleged crime. He has produced on
record verified copy of registration Certificate of motorcycle at Exh.B.
On perusal of the same, it is seen that the applicant Mr. Tufail Ahmed
Khan is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. Till today except the
applicant, no other person has claimed for that vehicle. So also,
accused has not opposed the application.
5. I would like to take the help of the observations of the Apex
Court in the case of,
“ Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
reported as 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943”. The Apex Court by referring its
previous judgment in case of
“ Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs.
State of Mysore ( 1977) 4 SCC 358 ” has re-produced para 4 of the
said judgment as under:
“ The object of the scheme of the various
provisions of the Code appear to be that where
the property, which has been the subject of an
offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be
retained in the custody of the court or of the
police for any time longer than what is absolutely
necessary. As t
he seizure of the property by the
police amounts to a clear entrustment of the
property to a Government servant, the idea is
that the property should be restored to the
original owner after the necessity to retain it
ceases.”
6. The Supreme Court has also pleased to discuss as to what
should be done in respect of the property which is vehicle seized during
-- 2 of 4 --
.. 3.. Cr. M. A. No.1462 of 2026 / Exh.1.
Tufail Vs. State of Maharashtra
the course of investigation. It has been observed that:-
“It is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the
police stations for a longer period. It is for the court
to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security
for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point
of time. ”
7. The applicant has stated in the application that he is ready
to abide the conditions, if any, imposed by the Court. Therefore, if the
above said vehicle is given in the custody of the applicant on certain
conditions, then the purpose of trial can be served very well. On the
contrary, if the vehicle remained idle in the custody of police, then
there is possibility that it would be rusted due to its non use.
8. Thus, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, I am inclined to grant the application of the applicant, who is
registered owner of the vehicle subject to certain conditions. In the
result I proceed to pass the following order.
-: O R D E R :-
01. The application is allowed.
02. Interim custody of motorcycle bearing Registration No. MH-
03-DB-4609, be given to the applicant Mr. Tufail Ahmed Khan,
on execution of indemnity Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rs. One Lac only) till further orders, on following
conditions:-
A) The applicant to execute Indemnity Bond before the
concerned Investigation Officer/PSO.
B) He shall produce two coloured photographs of
the seized vehicle taken in close view by its
front and rear side.
-- 3 of 4 --
.. 4.. Cr. M. A. No.1462 of 2026 / Exh.1.
Tufail Vs. State of Maharashtra
C) He is restricted to change the colour, body or to
make any other changes in the said vehicle and
also, to sell it and or dispose it off in any
manner till further orders.
D) He shall maintain the above said vehicle in
good and in as it is condition.
E) He shall produce the vehicle as and when
required in the Court or in the Deonar Police
Station. If he fails to do so, penalty of Rs.500/-
will be imposed upon him for every time.
F) He shall produce his identity proof prior to
execution of the bond.
03. Police Station, Deonar is directed to allow the applicant to
snap photographs of the seized vehicle in C.R.No.464/2026 or
to make any other necessary compliance at their office.
04. Yadi be issued to Police Station, Deonar.
(Sadanand B.Patil)
Date :- 25.08.2026. Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Court No.45, Kurla, Mumbai.
ssm/-
-- 4 of 4 --