Gujarat HC Gives Registered Owner Interim Custody Of Liquor-Case Truck, As Prohibition Act Confiscation Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of an Ashok Leyland FBL Eicher vehicle, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

Police had intercepted the vehicle on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

The petitioner relied on a financier’s no-objection certificate; the State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The petition invoked Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

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

The Supreme Court in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under the applicable procedural provision.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court accepted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and noted the financier’s NOC.

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release and that retaining the vehicle could expose it to deterioration while proceedings continued.

To safeguard the trial and any eventual order, the Court conditioned release on a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when directed, and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also required photographs and a panchnama before release and directed notice to the RTO to record the restriction on transfer.

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO for a register entry recording the restriction on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.