Gujarat HC Conditionally Releases Seized Splendor Bike, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hero Splendor Pro motorcycle, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11203038260290/2026.

The petitioner relied on the Court’s powers and the principle against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate in police custody; the State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property.

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 and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody pending trial.

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

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the State did not dispute that the Court could exercise its constitutional powers to order release when appropriate.

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release and that continued police custody risked deterioration of the vehicle.

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

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s expense, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any order of the trial court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.