Gujarat HC Lets Scorpio Owner Reclaim Liquor-Case Vehicle Pending Trial, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle in exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed.

It also directed

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

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers; the order must also be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later permission granted by the trial court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Mahindra and Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. GJ-02-DJ-5393, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1

The Magistrate rejected his release application on 29 April 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 10 July 2026.

p. 1

The petitioner argued that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate recording that the outstanding dues had been paid.

p. 2

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

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle in exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1 · pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial.

p. 2 · pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property; Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerns the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

p. 1

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be entrusted to their owner or another appropriate person on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held 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 appropriate custody pending trial.

p. 4

The judgment additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, where a vehicle was released in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the pending prohibition case.

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the vehicle’s possible deterioration while kept in police custody did not justify refusing interim release, and that the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute prohibition against release.

pp. 3–4

The Court therefore granted release subject to safeguards intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, and ensure its production when required.

p. 5