Gujarat HC Orders Bajaj Pulsar Seized In Liquor Case Released, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTS I, sought its interim release after police seized it in connection with an alleged liquor offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

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

The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a coordinate Bench decision concerning release of seized vehicles.

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution permit the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning seized property.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court discouraged keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods and advised prompt release on suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, 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 its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court considered that prolonged retention of the motorcycle at the police station could cause deterioration and that interim release could be balanced against the need to preserve the vehicle and ensure its production at trial.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sunderbhai and its account of M/s ABC Express to conclude that the confiscation provision did not create an absolute bar to release.

It therefore ordered release subject to security, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when required, and documentation of its condition through photographs and a panchnama.

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence; required police to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; and directed that the order be sent to the RTO for recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.