ZAMKUBEN KISHANBHAI RATHVA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/13683/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240628262026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF
MUDDAMAL) NO. 13683 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
ZAMKUBEN KISHANBHAI RATHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS.MANJULA R CHAUHAN(6871) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, 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 : 05/11/2026

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. WHITE
COLOUR TRIBER REX PETROL MOTOR CAR (RENAULT INDIA
PVT. LTD.) bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-34-H-5485.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the police
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:43:20 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13683/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240628262026)
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 FIR being C.R. No. 11186067251070 of 2025
came to be registered with Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar, for
the offence punishable under provisions 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 11.05.2026 by learned A.C.J.M. at
Bhavnagar. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Revision Application
No.79 of 2026 for challenging the order dated 11.05.2026. The
said revision application also came to be rejected vide order dated
th
01.07.2026 by learned 4 Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bhavnagar. 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 HDFC Bank. He has placed on
record “No Objection Certificate” dated 16.07.2026 issued by
HDFC Bank 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
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:43:20 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13683/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240628262026)
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.
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-34-H-5485 which came to be seized in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11186067251070 of 2025
registered with Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar.
7. 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.
8. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:43:20 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13683/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240628262026)
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."
9. 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
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:43:20 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13683/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240628262026)
appropriate order for its proper custody.
10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed .
11. The learned Trial Court/authority concerned is directed to
release the vehicle of the petitioner being WHITE COLOUR
TRIBER REX PETROL MOTOR CAR (RENAULT INDIA PVT. LTD.)
bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-34-H-5485 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:43:20 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13683/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240628262026)
transfer of vehicle.
14. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
Bharat
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by BHARATKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA KOSHTI(HC01064) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:43:20 IST 2026