Vaibhav Shripadrao Maid vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. The Court noted that while the applicant purchased the stolen property from Mr. Patre, there was no CDR record indicating the applicant's involvement in a conspiracy with the main accused, Mr. Khotkar, for purchasing stolen property. The purchase was made in the ordinary course of business. The Court observed that there were no antecedents against the applicant and the stolen property was recovered at his instance. Regarding the offence, the Court noted that while section 317(3) of the B.N.S. provides for punishment up to ten years for dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property with knowledge or reason to believe it was transferred by dacoity, there was no material on record to indicate the offence would fall under this sub-section. The Court concluded that even if the applicant received stolen property, the maximum sentence provided under section 317 is three years, and the applicant had been in custody since 11.6.2025. The Court granted bail on similar terms as in a previous bail application (BA No. 1147/2025).

Facts

The applicant, Vaibhav Shripadrao Maid, is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 473/2025, registered for offences including sections 310(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, and section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that the applicant purchased two silver plates from a co-accused, Mr. Rupesh Subhash Patre, who had received them as stolen property from a dacoity. The applicant, a goldsmith by profession, claims he purchased the plates in the ordinary course of business for medical emergency, paying through cash and digital modes. He states he had no knowledge that the property was stolen and that the plates were later melted. The applicant was arrested on 11.6.2025, and his bail application was rejected by the trial court. The stolen property was recovered at the applicant's instance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, by purchasing two silver plates from Mr. Patre, committed an offence under sections 310(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, particularly concerning the dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property, and if so, whether the offence falls under section 317(3) of the B.N.S., 2023. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant's role is similar to a co-accused in BA No. 1147/2025, who was granted bail. He contended that the applicant, a goldsmith, purchased the silver plates in the ordinary course of business due to a medical emergency, with no knowledge of them being stolen property. He submitted that at most, the applicant was negligent in not verifying bills. The applicant also has no antecedents. Revenue's arguments: The learned APP opposed the bail application, citing CDR records of mobile conversations between Mr. Patre and the applicant, and between Mr. Khotkar (main accused) and Mr. Patre. The APP argued that the applicant did not produce any GST or other bills for the purchase, suggesting the applicant was aware the property was stolen.