RAZAKBHAI OSHMANBHAI KHAFI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/SCR.A/13474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240687352026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 13474 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAZAKBHAI OSHMANBHAI KHAFI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN G VAGHELA(12034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/11/2026
JUDGMENT
Rule . Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondents.
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, to invoke extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 497 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer to release
Muddamal Vehicle i.e. BAJAJ MAXIMA Z CNG Autorickshaw bearing RTO
registration No. GJ-10-TZ-3997.
2. It emerges from the records that the case of the prosecution is
that the police personnel had seized the aforementioned vehicle of the
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 16:41:02 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/13474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240687352026)
petitioner and the same was taken as muddamal in connection with
offenses punishable under the Prohibition Act and FIR being C.R.
No.11202002261368 of 2026 came to be registered before City C -
Division Police Station, Jamnagar.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner
preferred had preferred applications before the lower courts to release
the vehicle, however, the same were rejected. He submitted that the
lower courts ought to have appreciated that if the vehicle in question is
not released, then the same may get junked and deteriorated and
therefore, the trial Court ought to have released the muddamal. He
further placed the “No objection Certificate” issued by Mahindra
Finance, which reads that they have no objection if the vehicle is
released to its registered owner, by retaining hypothecation in favour of
Mahindra Finance. The said certificate is taken on record.
4. He urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It can also take into
account the ratio laid down in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL
DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638
wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicles
having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police
station premises.
5. Learned APP for the respondent has objected the submissions
made by learned advocate for the petitioner in view of the provisions of
confiscation of the vehicle contained in the Prohibition Act, however, did
not dispute that powers of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 16:41:02 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/13474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240687352026)
time, whenever the Court deems it appropriate. Learned APP appearing
for the respondent-State submitted that, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, appropriate orders may be passed.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the
parties, and having gone through the record, it emerges that the
petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.
GJ-10-TZ-3997 which came to be seized in connection with FIR being
C.R. No.11202002261368 of 2026 registered with City C - Division
Police Station, Jamnagar.
8. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Musa Khan Jat
Vs. State of Gujarat (SCR.A/7190/2017) , in identical facts and
circumstances, released the vehicle by exercising the power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the
observations made by the Apex Court in 'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL
DESAI (supra), which read as under:
"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State
of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station
premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles
become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate
directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing
with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to
the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking
appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said
vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 16:41:02 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/13474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240687352026)
submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the
person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a
matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the
concerned persons.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep
such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is
for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by
taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for
return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This
can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such
vehicles."
10. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s ABC Express
Vs. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885 noticed interplay of
section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (section 497 of
BNSS) and section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and held that
section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not operate as
an absolute embargo against the release of a seized vehicle on interim
custody pending trial. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
that the Court is competent to exercise powers u/s 451 of the Code to
pass appropriate order for its proper custody.
11. Resultantly, this petition is allowed .
12. The learned Trial Court/authority concerned is directed to release
the vehicle of the petitioner being BAJAJ MAXIMA Z CNG Autorickshaw
bearing RTO registration No. GJ-10-TZ-3997 on the terms and
conditions that the petitioner:
(i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the
price of the vehicle in question stated in the FIR.
(ii) shall file undertaking before the learned Trial Court that he
shall not transfer the vehicle till final disposal of the trial.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 16:41:02 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/13474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240687352026)
(iii) shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the
learned Trial Court.
(iv) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle shall
stand confiscated.
13. Before release of the vehicle, concerned police authority shall
take photographs of the vehicle from all sides at the cost of the
petitioner and shall draw necessary panchanama to that effect. Said
panchanama and photographs shall be part of charge sheet papers for
the purpose of trial.
14. Copy of this order be send to concerned RTO, where the vehicle
is registered, for necessary entry in the Register and to take notice that
this Court has restrained transfer of vehicle till final disposal of the trial.
Such transfer shall be subject to any order that may be passed by the
learned Trial Court permitting transfer of vehicle.
15. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 16:41:02 IST 2026