DILIPBHAI SOMLABHAI MEDA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/12507/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240643462026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 12507 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI SOMLABHAI MEDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, 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 : 30/10/2026
JUDGMENT
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. Hero Motocorp Ltd.
Splendor+ 13S (DRS) bearing RTO registration No. GJ-20-BE-7341 .
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the police personnel
were on patrolling, they received 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
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 11:44:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/12507/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240643462026)
FIR being C.R. No. 11821024260479 of 2026 came to be registered
with Garbada Police Station, Dahod, for the offence punishable
under Sections 65(e), 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 to be
rejected vide order dated 15.07.2026 by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Garbada. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Revision
Application No.180 of 2026 for challenging the order dated
15.07.2026.The said revision application also came to be rejected
vide order dated 22.07.2026 by learned Sessions Judge, Dahod. He
submitted that the learned trial Court as well as Sessions Court
ought to have appreciated that if the 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is
hypothecated with Hero Fincorp Limited (HFCL). He has placed on
record “No Objection Certificate” dated 13.08.2026 issued by the
finance company for the release/handover of the petitioner’s
vehicle. The same is taken on record.
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 having been kept
unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 11:44:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/12507/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240643462026)
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-20-BE-7341which came to be seized in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11821024260479 of 2026 came
to be registered with Garbada Police 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:
"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the
State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 11:44:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/12507/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240643462026)
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 Hero Motocorp Ltd.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 11:44:25 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/12507/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240643462026)
Splendor+ 13S (DRS) bearing RTO registration No. GJ-20-BE-7341on
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 Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 11:44:25 IST 2026