Car Seized In Liquor Case To Be Released On Surety, Gujarat HC Applies SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar to Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Maruti Suzuki vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-05-TR-9179 after receiving secret information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Singanpore Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on the Court’s constitutional powers and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

The coordinate bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, was cited as an analogous instance of release under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The vehicle had been seized in connection with an alleged prohibition offence, but the statutory confiscation provisions did not, in light of M/s ABC Express, create an absolute bar to its interim release.

The Court considered the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody, as addressed in Sunderbhai, and the analogous release ordered in Musa Khan Jat.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed; it also provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers. The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.