CHANDABHAI NANDLAL SEJVANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/14777/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240773752026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF
MUDDAMAL) NO. 14777 of 2026
==================================================
CHANDABHAI NANDLAL SEJVANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 03/11/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP accepts rule on behalf of respondent no.1
and waives service.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 497 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to
release Muddamal Vehicle i.e HYUNDAI CRETA CAR bearing RTO
Registration No. GJ-38-B-3817.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 14:37:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14777/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240773752026)
3. The case of the prosecution is that while the police
personnel were on patrolling, they received a secret information of
the vehicle in question carrying liquor and when police authorities
intercepted the same, on carrying out the search of the said
vehicle, its driver was found carrying liquor without any pass or
permit. Therefore, an FIR being C.R. No.11191034260042 of 2026
registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the
offence punishable under the Prohibition Act.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP
for the respondent.
5. 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-38-B-3817 which came to be seized in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191034260042 of 2026
registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad.
6. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Musa
Khan Jat Vs. State of Gujarat (SCR.A/7190/2017) , in an
identical case, released the vehicle by exercising the power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 14:37:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14777/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240773752026)
7. 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 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."
8. 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
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 14:37:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14777/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240773752026)
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.
9. Resultantly, this petition is allowed .
10. The learned Trial Court/authority concerned is directed to
release the vehicle of the petitioner being HYUNDAI CRETA CAR
bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-38-B-3817 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;
(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.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 14:37:48 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/14777/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240773752026)
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
Bharat
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 14:37:48 IST 2026