CHANDRASINH @ PRAKASH @ PAKO PRAVINBHAI DAYRA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/10278/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240497222026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 10278 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
================================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHANDRASINH @ PRAKASH @ PAKO PRAVINBHAI DAYRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. SIDDHARTH S. THAKER, ADVOCATE for MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP,for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 29/10/2026
JUDGMENT
Rule . Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf
of the respondent. Draft amend stands allowed. To be carried out
forthwith.
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 21 and 226
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. Mahindra &
Mahindra Limited XUV500 FWD W6 bearing RTO registration No.
GJ-09-BB-8181.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 13:02:08 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10278/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240497222026)
2. 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.11821008250237
of 2025 came to be registered with Dahod Rural Station, Dahod,
for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e), 81, 98(2) and
116(B) of the Prohibition Act.
2.1 He submitted that the petitioner preferred an application
for release of the said vehicle however, the said application came
nd
to be rejected vide order dated 17.03.2026 by learned 2
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dahod. Thereafter, he
preferred Criminal Revision Application No.147 of 2026 for
challenging the order dated 17.03.2026. The said revision
application also came to be rejected vide order dated 18.06.2026
by learned Sessions Judge, Dahod. He submitted that the learned
trial Court as well as Sessions Court ought to have appreciated
that if the Mahindra & Mahindra Limited XUV500 is not released,
then the same may get junked and deteriorated and therefore,
the trial Court ought to have released the muddamal.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has 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
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 13:02:08 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10278/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240497222026)
having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the
police station premises.
4. 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 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.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. 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-09-BB-8181 which came to be seized in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11821008250237 of 2025
came to be registered with Dahod Rural Station, Dahod.
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.
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:
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 13:02:08 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10278/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240497222026)
"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
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 Mahindra & Mahindra
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 13:02:08 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/10278/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240497222026)
Limited XUV500 bearing RTO registration No. No.GJ-09-BB-8181
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.
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)
SIDDHARTH
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 13:02:08 IST 2026