01Facts
Police intercepted the petitioner’s Toyota Innova, allegedly carrying contraband without a pass or permit, and registered an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act
¶ 2The petitioner sought its release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the prosecution objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions
¶ 1, 5The High Court considered that objection alongside authorities on interim custody of seized vehicles
¶ 4–802Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act
¶ 5, 8ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards pending trial
¶ 7–1003Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers which may be exercised to order release of a seized vehicle
¶ 1, 5–6Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits the court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial; as the Supreme Court held in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle
¶ 8Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat holds that seized vehicles should not be left deteriorating at police stations and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required
¶ 7The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which ordered release in an analogous case
¶ 6Provisions 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 accepted that the Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, relying on M/s ABC Express and the State’s acknowledgment that the Court could order release under Article 226
¶ 5, 8Applying Sunderbhai and the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat, it concluded that continued retention of the vehicle was not necessary where safeguards could secure its availability for trial
¶ 6–7It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and an obligation to produce it when directed
¶ 1005Holding
The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or authority concerned was directed to release the Toyota Innova on the specified conditions, including that it would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence
¶ 9–10Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers
¶ 11the order was also to be sent to the RTO, with transfer restrained until final disposal of the trial unless the Trial Court permitted otherwise
¶ 12Original Court PDF
RAKESH CHAMPAKBHAI PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
