[2025:RJ-JP:6346] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4280/2024 Abhishek Meena S/o Shri Narendra Meena, R/o Plot No. A-2, Sarvoday Colony, Barkat Nagar Circle, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 13/02/2025 Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of petitioner against the impugned order dt.13.06.2024 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Application No.78,79/2024, whereby the application filed by petitioner for interim custody of vehicle i.e. Scorpio Car bearing registration No.RJ-14 UQ 8800 seized in case/F.I.R. No.38/2023 registered at Police Station SOG District Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B of I.P.C. & under Section 3 & 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures For Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022, has been rejected & the vehicle, in question on ‘supurdgi’ has not been released. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a power-of-attorney-holder of the vehicle-in-question [2025:RJ-JP:6346] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4280/2024] and, therefore, he is entitled for custody of the vehicle on ‘supurdgi’. Counsel further submits that the ld. Trial Court, while rejecting the application for interim custody of vehicle, has granted a liberty to the petitioner to move afresh application for interim custody of vehicle after filing the charge-sheet. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, while supporting the order impugned passed by the ld. trial Court, prays for rejection of the petition. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties & have gone through the impugned order as well as the material made available on record. Perusal of order impugned reveals that the ld. Trial Court, while rejecting the application for interim custody of the vehicle, has granted a liberty to the petitioner to move afresh application for interim custody of the vehicle after filing the charge-sheet. In the present case, since the charge-sheet has been filed, nothing remains survives in the petition and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to move afresh application for interim custody of vehicle on “supurdgi” before the ld. Trial Court. The ld. Trial Court may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK/