1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.542/2009 (Mrs.Meenakshi Nayak Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER : 6th MAY,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Ms.Arti Sharma, for the petitioner Mr.M.K.Meena, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kota in Cr.Revision Petition No.05/2009 whereby he rejected the revision petition and upheld the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for giving the Car bearing No.RJ 07/CA-0097 on Supardginama to him. Briefly stated the facts giving rise for disposal of this petition are that petitioner is the registered owner of Marauti Car bearing No.RJ 07/CA 0097. The petitioner moved an application for giving her on Supardgi the above vehicle before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota in a case wherein F.I.R. No.382/2008 was registered at the Police Station, Udyog Nagar, 2 Kota for the offences under sections 302, 307, 147, 148/149 I.P.C. The learned trial court rejected the application for the reason that main accused in the case was not arrested against whom the matter was pending investigation. The trial court order rejecting the application dated 16.1.2009 was challenged in revision petition No.5/2009 but without any success as the revisional court dismissed the revision petition vide its order dated 16.2.2009 upholding the reasons given in the order rejecting the application for supardgi of the car to the petitioner. Hence this petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the car in question is of the petitioner, who is registered owner of the vehicle. It is also contended that as regards vehicle is concerned, no investigation is to be made. It is also contended that injured Badri and deceased Lal Chand were going in the car when the incident took place. It is also contended that no useful purpose will be served keeping the vehicle at the Police Station because by lapse of time the vehicle will be of no use and petitioner will be deprived of making use of the vehicle in question. It is also contended that it is not a case where the vehicle was used by the accused. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the main accused has not yet been arrested and against him investigation is pending, therefore, the courts below have rightly declined the Supardgi of the car in question to the 3 petitioner. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. In the present matter, the point for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get the car in question on Supardginama. It is to be seen that in the instant case, deceased Lal Chand and Badri Mali were going in Marauti Car and when they crossed the bridge near Devli Sukh one vehicle Tavera/Qualis overtook and hit the car. From the Tavera/Qualis 8-10 persons came down and they started firing at Lal Chand and Badri. In the above circumstances, it can reasonably be presumed that vehicle was not used by the accused in the crime and the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. There appears no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that keeping the vehicle at the police station without shelter will definitely deteriorate. After some time it will be of no use for any body. Investigation in relation to the vehicle has been completed. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner being registered owner should be given the vehicle in question on Supardginama on proper terms and conditions and the petition is liable to be accepted. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the orders dated 16.2.2009 & 16.1.2009 passed by the revisional court and trial court respectively are hereby set aside. The vehicle in question shall be released on Supardginama to the petition on production of registration certificate and on satisfying the following conditions:- 4 (1) that the petitioner will furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 Lacs and two sureties of Rs.2.5 Lacs each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the condition that the vehicle shall be produced in the court as and when required to do so; (2) that the petitioner shall get three coloured cabinet size photographs of the vehicle to such set having the number plates, the chesis number, the engine number and the total body of the Car. (3) that the photo graphs shall be taken in presence of Investigating Officer and the learned Public Prosecutor. The photographs shall be submitted in triplicate. (4) That the petitioner shall not change the colour or either alter numbers or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (5) That the petitioner shall not transfer or alienate the said vehicle during the pendency of the trial. (6) That the security furnished must be verified by a competent Revenue Officer. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-