Gujarat HC Conditionally Releases Kia Sonet Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Kia Sonet bearing registration No. GJ-34-N-5515, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR registered at Bodeli Police Station under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected the release application on 28 July 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 7 August 2026.

The petitioner argued that prolonged retention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced the hypothecating bank’s no-objection certificate.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, referring also to the petition’s invocation of Section 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it applied the principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police custody and may be released on appropriate bond, guarantee and security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the BNSS).

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.

The vehicle was registered in the petitioner’s name, and the Court considered the risk that continued retention would cause it to deteriorate.

It found that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, having regard to the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express.

Applying the preservation principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and the coordinate Bench decision, the Court concluded that release was appropriate subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value and availability for trial.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of 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 subsequent order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.