SUDHIRKUMAR RAMNAVAL MISHRA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/15565/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240825112026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 15565 of 2026
==========================================================
SUDHIRKUMAR RAMNAVAL MISHRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADILHUSHAIN M SAIYED(9723) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 29/10/2026

JUDGMENT
Rule. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent.
1. At the outset, learned advocate, Mr. Saiyed, appearing for
the petitioner sought permission to delete prayer Clause 6C.
1.1 Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Prayer Clause 6C
stands deleted , accordingly.
1.2 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 Tata Motors Pick-up LX CLB BS6,
bearing RTO registration No. GJ-21-Y-3125.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 17:42:00 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15565/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240825112026)
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 contraband and when police
authorities intercepted the same, it was found carrying
contraband without any pass or permit. Therefore, an FIR being
C.R. No. 11214046251914 of 2025 registered with Palsana Police
Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under the Prohibition
Act.
3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP
for the respondent.
4. 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 having been kept unattended and becoming junk within
the police station premises. He also produced on record ‘No
Objection’ certificate, Dated: 28.10.2026, issued by Goyal
Corporation, which indicates that it has no objection, if, the
vehicle in question is released in favour of the petitioner.
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
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 17:42:00 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15565/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240825112026)
the vehicle can be exercised at any time, whenever the Court
deems it appropriate.
6. The coordinate bench of this court in the case of ‘ MUSA KHAN
JAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT ’, rendered in S.CR.A. No. 7190 of
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, the
observations made by the Apex Court in 'SUNDERBHAI
AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT' (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.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 17:42:00 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15565/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240825112026)
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 the case of ‘ M/S ABC
EXPRESS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT ’, reported in 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, i.e Tata Motors Pick-up
LX CLB BS6, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-21-Y—3125, 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.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 17:42:00 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15565/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240825112026)
(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.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 17:42:00 IST 2026