Gujarat HC Conditionally Releases Truck Seized For Allegedly Carrying Contraband, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Tata truck, registration No. GJ-10-TT-6183, after receiving secret information that it was carrying contraband.

A search allegedly revealed contraband being transported without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Chotila Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the truck, relying, among other things, on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a finance company’s no-objection certificate.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate; the Court also referred to its jurisdiction under Article 227 and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security, subject to their production when required.

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which it said held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody.

It further cited the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, concerning release of a vehicle in an identical case.

The Court considered the alleged confiscation provisions but concluded that they did not prevent interim release, relying on the Supreme Court’s stated interpretation of Section 98(2) and the availability of judicial powers to secure the vehicle’s production and preservation.

The finance company’s no-objection certificate supported release in the petitioner’s favour.

Applying the concern in Sunderbhai that vehicles may deteriorate while kept at police stations, the Court ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until trial concludes, and production whenever directed.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; both must form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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

Rule was made absolute.