01Facts
The petitioner, an authorised dealer of Gulf Oil and Mak Oil, stated that a fire broke out at her licensed storage premises on 19 March 2026.
¶ 4, 7 · pp. 2–3She said oil products valued at ₹11,08,000, which were in transit, were temporarily moved to a residential accommodation to avoid further fire hazards and were seized there on 20 March 2026.
¶ 4, 7 · pp. 2–3The Sessions Court rejected her application for release of the goods on 27 August 2026.
¶ 4 · p. 3The petitioner challenged that rejection and sought release of the goods; the State opposed release, citing their inflammable nature, their storage in a residence, and pending confiscation proceedings.
¶ 2, 5–6 · p. 1, 3The petitioner stated that an appeal against the confiscation order was pending before the Sessions Court.
¶ 2, 5–6 · p. 1, 302Issues
i.1. Whether the seized oil products should be released to the petitioner notwithstanding the State’s objection that they were inflammable and confiscation proceedings had been initiated.
¶ 5–8 · pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether release should be made subject to safeguards to preserve evidence and secure the value of the goods.
¶ 8–9 · p. 403Law Applied
The petition invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Article 226, and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release of the seized property.
¶ 2 · p. 1The judgment does not cite a precedent or articulate a separate statutory test for release.
It grants release subject to security and evidence-preservation measures: a solvent surety and personal bond for 1.5 times the goods’ value, and collection of samples, photographs, and a panchanama before release.
¶ 8–9 · p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the petitioner was an authorised dealer and that a fire had broken out at her storage premises; it recorded her explanation that the goods were moved to a residential area because they were in transit and had to be shifted to prevent further fire hazards.
¶ 7 · p. 3Although the State relied on the goods’ inflammable character and pending confiscation proceedings, the Court considered the overall circumstances sufficient to allow release, while imposing a bond and surety requirement and directing documentation of the goods before release.
¶ 5, 8–9 · pp. 3–405Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and directed release of the muddamal subject to the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety and personal bond for 1.5 times the value of the goods.
¶ 8 · p. 4Before release, the authority must collect samples, photograph the goods from all sides, and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost; these records are to form part of the case papers for trial or other proceedings.
¶ 9 · p. 4The Rule was made absolute.
¶ 10 · p. 4Original Court PDF
GOMTIBEN AMRUTLAL PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
