Bombay HC refuses to release property of acquitted farmer

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) has refused to release the property of farmer from Sangli district after noticing he had evaded arrest and absconded for over a decade after being booked for rape.

A non-bailable warrant was issued against Sikandar Deshinge by the judicial magistrate at Jat in Sangli, after he evaded his arrest.

On July 16, 1990, when the warrant returned without execution, an order of proclamation was issued against the 59-yearold farmer. Eventually, on August 17 in the same year, the judicial magistrate ordered the attachment of his property.

More than a decade after the attachment, Deshinge appeared before the Sangli sessions court in 2012 to face trial. On February 4, 2012, the trial court acquitted him of all the charges, including that of rape.

Two years later, in January 2014, Deshinge applied to the judicial magistrate at Jat, seeking orders to release his property from attachment, primarily in view of his acquittal.

The magistrate, however, rejected his plea on the ground of delay and refused to entertain his pleas, as he had failed to file the application within two years from the date of attachment, as stipulated under section 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Deshinge then approached the HC, contending that the provisions for attachment of property are made only to ensure he faced trial. Since he appeared to face trial, albeit belatedly, and was eventually acquitted, his property, therefore, cannot remain under court attach-

ment.

Additional public prosecutor AS Pai responded to his plea, pointing out that section 85(2) says the accused’s failure to appear before the trial court within stipulated period results in the property being vested with the government and accordingly becomes a property of the state.

The HC bench said the property could be released from attachment only in case of satisfactory explanation given by Deshinge to the effect that the attachment was unwarranted and he was not absconding. The bench held that his only explanation – that he was implicated in a false case – was not a valid excuse.

However, considering the trial court has concluded that Deshinge was implicated in a false case and the property still remains unutilised, the bench granted him leave to apply to the government and directed the government to decide such applications within three months of its receipt.