1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Banshi Bhai . Versus . State of Rajasthan. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.418/2006 against the order dated 23-5-2006 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99/2006 (Sessions Case No.91/2005). ... Date of Order: June 01, 2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR, J. Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. JPS Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: By the order dated 26-5-2006, a notice was served on the Public Prosecutor. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is being heard and decided at the admission stage. By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter), the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23-5-2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, “the trial Court” 2 hereinafter) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99/2006 (Sessions Case No.91/2005), whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code seeking custody of Maruti Car No.GJ.1-HD-4495 on Supurdginama during pendency of the case, of which the petitioner is the registered owner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. The trial Court declined to release the car in question solely on the ground that the original purchase bill has not been filed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the car in question was purchased from Kataria Automobiles Ltd., an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki in the name of petitioner Banshi Bhai Ramchandram Bisnoi on 14-6-2003. Thereafter it was got registered with the Registering Authority, Ahmedabad vide Registration No. GJ.1-HD-4495. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me the original Registration Certificate of the said car, which stands in the name of the present petitioner. There is no other person seeking the custody of the said car. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is neither an accused nor a witness in the case and if the car is allowed to remain at the police station, the chances of its exposing to heat, air and rains and losing its value cannot be ruled out and it will also deprive the petitioner from the use of the said car. 3 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that the petitioner is neither an accused nor a witness in the case, the car is not the subject-matter of the offence and the fact that the said car is registered in the name of the petitioner as per the Registration Certificate and it was purchased by the petitioner from Kataria Automobiles Ltd, an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki vide Invoice Intimation No.00965, in my view, the petitioner is entitled for the interim custody of the said car during pendency of the case. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-5-2006 passed by the trial Court is set aside and it is directed that the Maruti car No. GJ.1-HD-4495 be delivered to the petitioner on a Supurdginama, provided the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the petitioner shall not transfer, alienate or alter the car in question during pendency of the case and shall produce it as and when called upon to do so by the trial Court. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs