Gujarat HC Conditionally Releases Alto Seized In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Confiscation Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Maruti Alto 800, registration No. GJ-13-NN-3205, after receiving information that it was carrying contraband.

p. 1

The vehicle was allegedly found carrying contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought its interim release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

p. 1

The State opposed release in view of the Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released subject to conditions protecting its production and preservation for trial

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property during inquiry or trial.

p. 1

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be entrusted to an owner or other appropriate person on bond, guarantee and security for their production when required.

pp. 2–3

Relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle; the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court considered the allegation that the vehicle had been used to carry contraband and the State’s reliance on the confiscation provisions, but found that those provisions did not absolutely prevent interim release.

pp. 2–4

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that retaining the vehicle at the police station risked its deterioration and that its production and preservation could be secured through appropriate conditions.

pp. 2–4

It therefore directed release subject to security, an undertaking against transfer, production when required, and consequences for a subsequent offence.

p. 4