JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code. seeking interim custody of jeep bearing No. RJ-21-C-5745. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant. Perused the order impugned and challan papers. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a sole owner of the jeep and except the petitioner, no one has led any claim before the trial Court for custody of the jeep in question. Jeep in question was seized by the police on 23.2.2001 under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code. as it was lying abandoned. The occurrence is of February 2001 and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 23.5.2003 in crime report No.19/2001, whereas the Jeep in question was seized under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code. on 23.2.2001 and, therefore, till the jeep was seized, it was not involved in any commission of crime. Thereafter also, no information was given by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. So far as the injuries to the deceased of the crime case alleged to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon is concerned, according to the learned counsel at any rate, jeep owned by the petitioner is not involved in any commission of crime. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the other side submits that the petitioner is habitual offender and he repeated the crimes. Be that as it may. 5. So far as interim custody of the jeep in question during pendency of the trial is concerned, the petitioner being registered owner and sole claimant, there being no rival claimant to custody of the jeep and prima facie, there is no evidence that any offence has been committed by the said jeep. 6. Without commenting on the merit of the criminal case, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in refusing the release of jeep on interim custody to the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.5.2005 is set aside. 6. Without commenting on the merit of the criminal case, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in refusing the release of jeep on interim custody to the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.5.2005 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to release the jeep in favour of the petitioner on supurdginama during pendency of the criminal case provided he 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 incorporation in the bond that the petitioner shall not alter, alienate or transfer the jeep in question during the pendency of the criminal case and shall produce the same before the trial Court as and when called upon to do so.Revision petition allowed. *******