[2025:RJ-JP:19336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2693/2025 Imran Son Of Shri Isab, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Naswari, Police Thana Govindgarh, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Ruksina Widow Of Shri Anish Daughter Of Sitab, Resident Of Naswari At Present Sadempur, Thana Govindgarh, District Alwar. 3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Through Authorized Agent Rohitashav 57, Krishna Tower, Sardar Patel Marg, C- Scheme Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandesh Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 07/05/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. against the order dated 17.01.2025 in Case No.19/2025 arising out of the FIR No.268/2024 whereby the application for release of the vehicle No. RJ 02 UB 2706 on supurdgi was canceled and assailing the revisionary order dated 01.03.2025 in Revision No.09/2025 whereby the order dated 17.01.2025 was maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nikkah of the son of petitioner with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.04.2023 according to muslim customs. [2025:RJ-JP:19336] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2693/2025] 3. On 08.10.2023, respondent No.2 husband i.e. petitioners’ son committed suicide. It is submitted that immediately thereafter respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house and went back to her paternal house along with her dowry. It is submitted that for instigating/committing suicide an FIR No.378/2024 was made to be registered against the respondent No.2 (Annexure-2). 4. It is further contended that the present petition is filed in connection with FIR No.268/2024 whereby the vehicle bolero which was purchased by the petitioner and was in his possession, along with the registration certificate, insurance policy/gate pass etc. being registered under his name was wrongly seized by the police authorities. 5. It is then submitted that application under Section 457 of CrPC (pari materia provisions), was rejected by holding the vehicle in question to be a part of the dowry. However, from the registration certificate and other relevant documents it is can be deduced that the same was not a part of the dowry. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has stoutly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having heard the rival arguments and upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that the learned Trial Court has categorically noted that vehicle bolero was given in dowry just ten days before the marriage; that the uncle of respondent No.2 has given advance payment and has made certain financial transactions qua the same, therefore, merely because registration certificate of the vehicle in question is in the name of petitioner, in substance of form, it cannot be denied that the bolero was gifted as an outcome of the marriage as a dowry. [2025:RJ-JP:19336] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2693/2025] 8. It is also noted by the Court that after demise of husband, the related belongings were recognized as dowry and the only person upon whom the same can be devolved is the lawfully wedded wife. Moreover, the petitioner has orally admitted before the Court that the vehicle in question was received as a gift/dowry at the time of marriage and merely mortgaging the said motor vehicle with Kotak Mahindra Bank and having registration certificate cannot be the primary ground for releasing the goods. 9. Howsoever, taking note of the fact that initial order has noted that the actual facts will be considered at the time of evidence and at the time of final passing of the order, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to raise his objections and grievances while the evidences are being recorded and the matter is being argued finally before the Trial Court. 10. It is made clear that no rights of the petitioner shall be prejudiced due to any of the recordings noted hereinabove. 11. In light of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/56