Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Naresh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Naresh vs State of Maharashtra

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Jan 23, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1105080

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Application (Apl) No.42 of 2013
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh

Respondent

State of Maharashtra

Excerpt

.....nemichand kothari-the applicant herein was the complainant in the said case and it was alleged that there was theft of gold ornaments from his shop. the suspected person was one of the employees of the complainant. therefore, offence under section 381 of the indian penal code was registered and was investigated. the property has been recovered during the course of said investigation. 5. it is submitted by learned counsel mr. r.m. daga that the order is onerous inasmuch as the applicant has been directed to execute bonds of two sureties in the sum of rs.50,00,000/- each despite the fact that the property belongs to the applicant. the non-applicant does not dispute that the property should be returned to the applicant. 6. after having gone through the facts of the case and after hearing both the sides and particularly considering the fact that the applicant is permanent resident of nagpur and is having his business place at nagpur, it was not necessary for the learned magistrate to ask for sureties for return of property belonging to the applicant/complainant, particularly when the conditions have been imposed to ensure production of property. hence, the order passed by the learned magistrate on 15th december, 2012, as far as para no.2 of the said order is concerned, is modified as under: "2. the gold ornaments and gold nugget weighing 2659 gram and 730 miligram valued at about rs.78,00,000/- shall be returned to the applicant by the police inspector of panchpaoli police station, nagpur on execution of his personal bond of rs.78,00,000/- with the conditions mentioned in para no.3." the application accordingly stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.M. Daga for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.M. Bhagde for the non-applicant/State.

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Nagpur on 15th December, 2012 on Exh.1 in Misc. Criminal Application No.1841/2012. The learned Magistrate has directed return of seized gold ornaments and gold nugget weighing 2659 gram and 730 miligram to the original applicant on execution of personal bond of Rs.78,00,000/- and bonds of two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each.

4. The applicant was the original complainant and he claims to be the owner of the property. The property recovered by the police is the stolen property recovered during the course of investigation of Crime No.184/2012. Naresh Nemichand Kothari-the applicant herein was the complainant in the said case and it was alleged that there was theft of gold ornaments from his shop. The suspected person was one of the employees of the complainant. Therefore, offence under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and was investigated. The property has been recovered during the course of said investigation.

5. It is submitted by learned Counsel Mr. R.M. Daga that the order is onerous inasmuch as the applicant has been directed to execute bonds of two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each despite the fact that the property belongs to the applicant. The non-applicant does not dispute that the property should be returned to the applicant.

6. After having gone through the facts of the case and after hearing both the sides and particularly considering the fact that the applicant is permanent resident of Nagpur and is having his business place at Nagpur, it was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to ask for sureties for return of property belonging to the applicant/complainant, particularly when the conditions have been imposed to ensure production of property. Hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 15th December, 2012, as far as para No.2 of the said order is concerned, is modified as under:

"2. The gold ornaments and gold nugget weighing 2659 gram and 730 miligram valued at about Rs.78,00,000/- shall be returned to the applicant by the Police Inspector of Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur on execution of his personal bond of Rs.78,00,000/- with the conditions mentioned in para No.3."

The application accordingly stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial